Haryana

Sonipat

CC/249/2015

Satyawan S/o Mehar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.E. Ops. UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Hans Raj Sharma

14 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.249 of 2015

                                Instituted on:29.07.2015

                                Date of order:14.12.2015

 

Satyawan son of Mehar Singh resident of village Karewari, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

                                                     ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.SE (Ops) UHBVN Ltd., Sonepat Division, near ITI Chowk, Kabirpur, Sonepat.

2.SDO (Electrical) UHBVN Ltd. Murthal road near Sector 14, Sonepat.

 

 

                                                     ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Baljit Khatri, Adv. for respondents.

 

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 electricity connection on 14.12.2007 and has deposited the huge amount with the respondents from time to time.  But till date the respondents have not released the electricity connection for the tubewell of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint against the respondent.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant applied for a tubewell connection and submitted the application form and consent money and cost of span. At that time, Jasbir Singh JE Ist and Sanjeev LDC (CC) were posted in the sub office Bhatgaon but when the process of connection had to commence the original file deposited by the complainant was found missing.  The amount deposited by the complainant stands recorded in the record the department.  The complainant was asked to deposit duplicate file so that the process for release of connection may be started but the paid no heed.    There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent 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.        The main stand of the respondents is that the complainant applied for a tubewell connection and submitted the application form and consent money and cost of span. At that time, Jasbir Singh JE Ist and Sanjeev LDC (CC) were posted in the sub office Bhatgaon but when the process of connection had to commence the original file deposited by the complainant was found missing.  The amount deposited by the complainant stands recorded in the record the department.  The complainant was asked to deposit duplicate file so that the process for release of connection may be started but the paid no heed. 

          But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents since there is nothing on record to prove that the respondents till date ever asked the complainant to submit the duplicate file.  The respondents have also submitted that the complainant applied for a tubewell connection and submitted the application form and consent money and cost of span. At that time, Jasbir Singh JE Ist and Sanjeev LDC (CC) were posted in the sub office Bhatgaon but when the process of connection had to commence the original file deposited by the complainant was found missing.  The amount deposited by the complainant stands recorded in the record the department.

          In our view, for the lapses on the part of the officials of the respondents, the complainant cannot be made to suffer.  There is also nothing on record to prove that for the said lapses on the part of Jasbir Singh JE-I and Sanjeev LDC (CC) the respondents have ever taken any action against them.  In our view, it is a serious lapse on the part of the officials of the respondents and the respondents cannot escape from their legal liabilities on his lame excuse and further in our view, if the respondents are exonerated, it will be great injustice with the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousand) for rendering deficient services, unnecessary harassment and litigation expenses and further to release the electricity tubewell connection to the complainant under the scheme it was applied for by the complainant in the year 2007, within one month after expiry of the period for filing appeal by the respondent before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula against this order, if the respondents advised or desire so.

          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: 14.12.2015