BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 110 of 2018
Date of Institution : 26.3.2018
Date of Decision : 06.03.2019
Smt. Amarjeet Kaur wife of Sh. Bhal Singh, resident of village Mallewala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The S.D.O, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Panjuana, Distt. Sirsa.
2. Assistant General Manager, Sub Division Office, Panjuana, Distt. Sirsa.
3. G.M. Commercial, DHBVN Hisar.
4. Managing Director, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Panchkula.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………… PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER
MS. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Surjeet Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that on 31.12.2008 complainant moved an application No.33393 to the ops for obtaining new tubewell connection in her land and at that time the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.750/- as processing fee. That on 17.9.2010, the op no.2 had issued a letter No.6478 dated 22.9.2010 and informed to get deposit Rs.20,000/- as a first installment of issuance of the tubewell connection and to fulfill other conditions. That thereafter on 26.10.2010 a sum of Rs.20,000/- were got deposited by the op from the complainant as installment for the issuance of tubewell connection and she also fulfilled other conditions as required by the ops. Then ops had assured the complainant to inform regarding installation of the tubewell connection. Since then complainant is visiting to the office of ops regarding information as well as regarding installation of tubewell connection but ops are putting off the matter with one pretext or the other and even not providing any information regarding this despite the fact that an amount of Rs.20,000/- is still deposited with them. In this regard, the complainant had moved an application to the Ops on 11.02.2017 but only assurance has been given that the tubewell would be installed within some period. The complainant got served legal notice upon them but to no avail. This way, the Ops are deficient in providing service to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written statement in which they have taken preliminary objections regarding no cause of action, maintainability, locus standi, estoppal, concealment of true and material facts and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of ops. On merits, it is submitted that the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by the complainant was non-refundable amount as per rules of the Nigam and this fact was brought in the knowledge of the complainant. The Ops had written a letter No.2542 dated 17.06.2011 to the complainant to give option in compliance of Sales Circular No.10/2011 for three tire connection. As per sales instruction no.10/20111 as per memo No.CH.10/SE/C-R/R-16/94/2004/F-5 dated 19.05.2011 the complainant was required to give option for three tire connection within 15 days of notice but she did not turn up, therefore after waiting for sufficient time, the application of the complainant was cancelled/filed on 20.08.2013. As per sales instruction No.14/2011 memo No.CH-14/GM/COMML./R-17/659/F-28 dated 21.06.2011 it was decided by the Nigam that in case of non-submission of option/consent by the AP/applicant if any, within three months and likewise non compliance of demand notice within three months then such applications would be cancelled. However SE/OP would be competent to revive such cancelled application within 12 months of the date of their cancellation. It is further submitted that as per sales instructions No.15/2014 memo No.CH/15/GM/C/R-17/321/2005/F-15 dated 21.08.2014 where demand notices have not been complied and the requisite dues have not been deposited by the applicants, the CE/OP was authorized to accord approval for revival of such cases within three years of cancellation. No revive shall be allowed thereafter. The letter No.2542 dated 17.06.2011 was written to the complainant to give option for three tier connection but he did not opt and more than 7 years have been passed and as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief. Clarification from the Chief Engineer/ OP DHBVN Hisar was also sought but there was no provisions for revival of cancelled application of tubewell after expiry of limitation period. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. The complainant produced her affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Sh.Balwan Singh as Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9. On the other hand the Ops have produced affidavit of Sh.Sanjay Kumar Sheoran, Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R11.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove her case has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which she has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. Sh.Balwant Singh by way of Ex.CW2/A has corroborated the version of the complainant. The complainant has also produced documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9. On the other hand, opposite parties have tendered affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, SDO as Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated the averments of the written statement filed by ops. The ops have also produced documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R11.
6. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant has applied for obtaining a new tubewell connection in her land on 21.12.2008 and also deposited Rs.750/- as processing fee. On 17.09.2010 the Op No.2 had issued a letter dated 647866 dated 22.09.2010 and informed to get deposit Rs.20,000/- as a first installment and to fulfill other conditions. The complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- with the Ops on 26.10.2010. As per allegation of the complainant thereafter she had been visiting the Ops for the release of the connection but the Ops did not release the connection.
7. On the other hand there is specific contention of the Ops that the complainant did not deposit the payment demanded through demand notice by the Ops for the installation of the tubewell connection and she also did not give any response to the calls and notices sent to the complainant for the installation of the tubewell connection but however, after due process the application of the complainant was cancelled and now the same cannot be revived under the existing sales circular and rules of the Ops.
8. During the course of arguments, though learned counsel for the complainant has strongly contended that neither the connection has been released to the complainant nor refund of Rs.20,000/- has been given to her which clearly amounts deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Learned counsel for the Ops has contended that till date the amount of Rs.20,000/- which was deposited by the complainant has not been refunded to the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the said amount.
9. The perusal of the file reveals that the Ops have placed on record certain documents by which the application for issuance of tubewell connection was cancelled by the Ops due to non response of the complainant regarding deposit of the remaining amount and submitting the required documents after the issuance of demand notice but however, the natural justice demands that the complainant (lady) who has deposited her hard money i.e. Rs.20,000/- with the Ops for the issuance of tubewell connection and waited for the same for the last more than 10 years, deserves for some relief and keeping in view the facts and circumstances we hereby allow this complaint and direct the complainant to file an application for revival of her cancelled application to the Ops for revival which has been cancelled by the Ops within a period of 15 days from the date of receiving of copy of the order. The Ops are directed to consider the application of the complainant for revival in accordance with law and to pass a fresh order on her application and in case it is found that the cancellation order cannot be revived under any provisions of law then they are directed to make refund of Rs.20,000/- so deposited by the complainant with the Ops within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order. Further directed the Ops to pay interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President, Dated:06.03.2019
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
