Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/268/2015

Vinod Kumar S/o Karan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mir Chand Saini

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                           Complaint No. 268 of 2015.

                                                                                           Date of institution:29.07.2015

                                                                                           Date of decision:02.06.2016.

Vinod Kumar aged about 42 years son of Sh. Karan Singh, resident of village Sandhala, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Sub Divisional Officer, UHBVN Electricity Office, Operation Division Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Xen, UHBVN,(Operation Division) Yamuna Nagar District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Managing Director, UHBVN, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula (Haryana)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 …Respondent.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. M.C.Saini Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.                

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Vinod Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased land measuring 67 Kanal 08 Marla from its owner Sh. Om Parkash adopted son of Smt.Kakyawali Wd/o Sh. Radha Krishan resident of village Sandhala, Sub Tehsil Radaur vide sale deed No. 2795, 2797 dated 09.08.2011 alongwith tubewell connection No. K2/201 and K2/208. At the time of registration of sale deed, the abovesaid Om Parkash has also given an affidavit to the effect that if the abovesaid tubewell connection has to be transferred in the name of complainant then Sh. Om Parkash or his legal heirs shall have no objection in transferring the abovesaid connection in favour of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant has approached the OPs alongwith complete file having all the necessary documents vide application No. 51572 and 51573 dated 23.8.2011 to get transferred the abovesaid tubewell connections in his name and after checking the complete file, the SDO, UHBVN Radaur has got deposited the transfer fee alongwith other charges vide receipts No. 116 and 117 dated 23.08.2011. The complainant contacted the OPs so many times to do the needful but all in vain and lastly they flatly refused the accede the genuine request of the complainant. Lastly prayed for directing the OPs to transfer the abovesaid tubewell electricity connections No. K2/201 and K2/208 in the name of complainant and further directed to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; no locus standi to file the present complaint; is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct; complaint is false and frivolous and on merit it has been submitted that the complainant has not supplied the required documents and has not fulfilled all the requisite formalities to get change the said electricity connection in his name, so whenever the complainant will fulfill all the requisite formalities as per policy/ instructions of the Nigam then the electricity connection will be transferred in his name. Lastly, prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of receipt of amounting to Rs. 375/- as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of receipt of amounting to Rs. 500/- as Annexure C-2 Photo copy of affidavit of Om Parkash as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of sale deed as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of application dated 15.7.2015 for transferring the tubewell connections as Annexure C-5, and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Dharambir SDO as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of affidavit of Anil Kumar son of Jagdish Chand as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Intkal as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of Intkal as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of affidavit of Om Parkash as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of Intkal as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of Instruction No.2.2 of Electricity Department as Annexure R-6  and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.                

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The main objection of the OPs is that the complainant has not fulfilled the requisite formalities to get change the electric tubewell connections in his name and whenever he will fulfill the requisite formalities, the connection will be transferred in the name of the complainant as per policy/instructions of the Nigam and draw our attention towards Annexure R-6 Instruction No.2.2 for the change of name and also referred the affidavit of one Sh. Anil Kumar son of Jagdish Chand (Annexure R-1) in which said Anil Kumar has mentioned that he is co-sharer of the land in question and some civil litigation is pending before the Civil Court and due to this reason also the OPs has not transferred the tubewell connections in question in the name of complainant.  

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the complainant argued at length that the complainant purchased the land measuring 67 kanal 8 marlas alongwith tubewell installed in the land from Sh. Om Parkash adopted son of Smt. Kakyawali widow of Radha Krishan which is evident from sale deed Annexure C-4 and copy of Intkal Annexure R-3. The land in question was acquired by Sh. Om Parkash in inheritance after the death of his mother Kakyawali. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that Sh. Om Parkash has also given an affidavit dated 9.8.2011 (Annexure C-3) to the purchaser of land Sh. Vinod Kumar, complainant that he or his Legal heirs have no objection if the tubewell connection is transferred in the name of complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant has completed all the formalities as well as has also deposited the requisite fee (Annexure C-1 & C-2) for transferring the tubewell connection in his name.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that the OPs has not specifically mentioned which formalities are to be completed by the complainant rather the they have stated to complete the requisite formalities. From the perusal of instruction No. 2.2 (Annexure R-6) wherein it has been specifically mentioned that for the change of name the consent of legal occupant should be obtained, no outstanding amount should be in the name of previous consumer, the connection should not be released on priority basis but in the present complaint, it is clearly established that complainant has purchased the land vide sale deed  No. 2795 & 2797 dated 9.8.2011( Annexure C-4) and Intkal has been duly sanctioned in his favour (Annexure R-3) and further the seller of land has also tendered an affidavit for transferring the electric connection in the name of complainant, no amount is outstanding towards the seller of land as the complainant is using the same connection and nothing is due against him as well as seller of land did not obtain the electric connection on priority basis.  Furthermore, as far as the question of required documents for the change of name is concerned the points noted at 2.1 to 2.8.3 are not applicable in the present complaint as the complainant had purchased the land from Sh. Om Parkash and he has also tendered sale deed (Annexure C-4) as well as affidavit (Annexure C-3/R-4) in favour of complainant. Although the OPs has filed photo copy of affidavit of one Anil Kumar in support of their version but in this affidavit it is nowhere mentioned that complainant is not using the tubewell connections bearing No. K2/201 and K2.208 and further has not purchased the land in question from Om Parkash. Further the OPs has not placed on file any copy of stay or any order passed by the Hon’ble Civil Court. In the absence of any order of Hon’ble Civil Court the arguments advanced by the counsel for the OPs on this point is not tenable. Moreover, when the OP has accepted the requisite fees vide receipt Annexure C-1 and C-2 on 23.08.2011 in respect of tubewell connection bearing No. K2/201 and K2/208 then how they can withheld the application of the complainant for transferring the tubewell connections in the name of complainant. Even the OPs have not placed on file any notice issued to the complainant for completing the formalities as alleged by the OPs in its written statement. So we are of the considered view that the OPs have illegally withheld the application for transferring the tubewell connections bearing No. K2/201 and K2/208, in the name of complainant for a long time despite accepting the requisite fees, which constitute deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the complainant is entitled for relief.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to transfer the electric connections of tubewell as per rules in the name of complainant subject to deposit of fees etc, if any, within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order. The complainant is also directed to complete the formalities, if any as and when required by the OPs. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 02.06.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.