Haryana

Sonipat

172/2014

RANBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

MANNU MALIK

14 Jul 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.172 of 2014

                                Instituted on:04.07.2014

                                Date of order:22.01.2015

 

Ranbir Singh son of Dhan Singh, resident of village Baroda Mor, tehsil Gohana, district Sonepat.

                                                     ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.SDO UHBVN Ltd., Sub Division Kathura (Gohana) district Sonepat.

2.Executive Engineer, UHBVN Ltd., Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

                                    

                                                     ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Mannu Malik, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. I.S. Malik, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

           D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has applied for the release of tubewell connection with the respondents vide application dated 17.3.2009  and has deposited certain amount  with the respondents from time to time, but till date, the respondents did not release the connection for the tubewell of the complainant and due to non-release of the connection, the complainant could not irrigate his land and has suffered a financial loss to the tune of Rs.3 lacs. So, due to the deficient services rendered by the respondents, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that no assurance of any kind as alleged by the complainant was ever given by the respondents.   The complainant has applied for the release of tubewell connection and his name is placed at serial no.27 in the seniority list.   The respondents will release the electric connection to the complainant as and when his turn comes. So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and has gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that no assurance of any kind as alleged by the complainant was ever given by the respondents.   The complainant has applied for the release of tubewell connection and his name is placed at serial no.27 in the seniority list.   The respondents will release the electric connection to the complainant as and when his turn comes. So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has applied for the release of tubewell electricity connection in March, 2009 and has deposited certain amount with the respondents, but till date the connection has not been released by the respondents and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          The complainant in support of his contention has placed on record the copy of sales circular of the respondents, in which, it is clearly mentioned that all the pending tubewell connecti8ons under the normal seniority upto 31.12.2011 in respect of which demand notices have already been issued upto 30.9.2013 must be released within six months i.e. 31.3.2014.

          We find force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and has come to the conclusion that the respondents are deficient in their services as they even failed to comply with the directions of the Nigam.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to release the tubewell electricity connection to the complainant under the scheme in which he has applied and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.ten thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced: 22.01.2015