Haryana

StateCommission

A/129/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.BAJAJ

18 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No    :   129 of 2016

Date of Institution :   10.02.2016

Date of Decision   :   18.03.2016

 

SDO, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division, Kharkhoda, Sonepat, Haryana.

                   Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Satbir Singh son of Sh. Sube Singh, resident of Village Kakroi, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

Respondent-Complainant

 

                            

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for appellant assisted by Shri Amit Garg, SDO

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

SDO, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited -opposite party (for short ‘UHBVNL’) is in appeal against the order dated December 01^st, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Satbir Singh-complainant was allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“But we find no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent because vide document Exhibit R6, the respondent official has directed the complainant to deposit Fard Jamabandi and Aks Shijra of the land where the tubewell connection is to be installed.  The complainant has deposited the same on dated 12.9.2008.  But till date the respondent has not restored the electricity tubewell connection of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with the direction to the respondent to restore the electricity tubewell connection of the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order.”

         

2.      Complainant was having tubewell connection bearing No.K4-48.  He got the connection disconnected temporarily after paying all the dues because of deficiency in the water level.  In the year 2005, he again applied for restoration of the tubwell connection under RCO scheme and deposited Rs.30,000/- vide receipt No.32378 with the UHBVNL but the connection was not restored.   It is the case of the UHBVNL that it’s officials went to the spot to restore the connection but the same could not be done on the request of complainant because there was no passage to reach the spot.  Thereafter, UHBVNL never restored the tubewell connection of the complainant.

3.      Admittedly, the entire amount to restore the tubewell connection was paid by the complainant to UHBVNL.  The authorities concerned asked the complainant to submit the revenue records, that is, Jamabandi and field map of the land where the new tubewell connection was to be installed which he also submitted.  In view of this, there is no illegality or irregularity discernible in the impugned order passed by the District Forum.  Thus, the appeal is dismissed.    

 

Announced 18.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK