Haryana

StateCommission

A/156/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM KARAN - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

17 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    156 of 2017

Date of Institution:    09.02.2017

Date of Decision :    17.03.2017

1.     Junior Engineer, Sub Urban Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Urban Division, Village Bhatgaon, District Sonipat.

2.     Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban Division, Sector-15, Murthal Road, Sonipat.

3.     Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Urban Division, Fazilpur, District Sonipat

 

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Ram Karan son of late Bhoop Singh s/o Sh. Chandgi Ram, Resident of Village Bhatana Jafrabad, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

Argued by:          Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

         This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated November 25^th, 2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Ram Karan-complainant/respondent was accepted. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to send their demand to the complainant regarding completion of their formalities as per policy which was in force in the year 2009. The complainant is also directed to complete the formalities of the respondent and he shall also submit the no objection certificate after getting it from the other legal heirs of the deceased Bhoop Singh to the effect that they have no objection, if the tubewell electricity connection is released in the name of complainant. Similarly, it is directed to the respondent that after getting the formalities completed from the complainant, they shall release the electricity tubwell connection to the complainant.”

2.                Bhoop Singh (since deceased)-father of the complainant applied for electric connection of his tubewell to Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’) on December 30^th, 2009.  He deposited Rs.1750/- vide receipt No.140, Book No.061532.   Inspite of repeated requests, the UHBVNL did not release connection. Bhoop Singh died on 19^th July, 2015. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.    

3.                Learned counsel for the UHBVNL has assailed the order of the District Forum raising plea that the complainant failed to complete the formalities of the UHBVNL, so connection was not released.  The connection is to be released as per Sales Circular No.4-25/2017 dated 3^rd June, 2013.

4.                The contention raised is not tenable. Indisputably, father of the complainant had applied for tubewell connection on 30^th December, 2009. So, the complainant is entitled to get connection as per Sales Circular which was applicable on 30^th December, 2009.  The complainant cannot be forced to take connection under the new scheme.  This being so, the impugned order does not require any interference.

5.                In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Announced: 17.03.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL