Haryana

StateCommission

A/194/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATYAWAN - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.194 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 08.03.2016

Date of Decision: 29.11.2016

 

1. SE (Ops) UHBVNL Ltd, Sonepat Division, Near I.T.I. Chowk, Kabipur, Sonepat.
2. S.D.O. (Electrical) UHBNVL Murthal Ltd, Near Sector 14, Sonepat.

                                                                   .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Satyawan S/o Sh. Mehar Singh, R/o Village Karewali, Tehsil and Distt. Panchkula.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

Present:-    Mrs.Alka Joshi, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.Hans Raj Bhardwaj, Advocate counsel for the  respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Complainant alleged that he applied for tubewell connection and deposited Rs.1500/- with opposite parties (O.Ps.) vide receipt No.77490/142  on 14.12.2007. As per demand of O.Ps , he further deposited Rs.20,000/- on 09.04.2009 and Rs.28,000/- on 01.07.22010 for connection, but, same was not released. Thus there was deficiency in service on their part.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that when process of connection was to be started,  the original file deposited by complainant was found missing. They asked him to deposit duplicate file, so that process  for release of connection could be started but he paid no heed.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on their part.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat  (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 14.12.2015 and directed as under:-

“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.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps./appellants have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      It is not disputed that complainant moved application on 14.12.2007 for tubewell connection, but, the same was not allotted even after a very long time. It is alleged by the O.Ps. that file was misplaced and the necessary action has been  taken against  some official. If file was misplaced by some official, complainant cannot be made to suffer, so learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint.

7.      The opposite parties-appellants may fix the responsibility of the concerned official, who was responsible for this lapse and the loss suffered by department may be recovered from the concerned employee/employees as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 and Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed  in Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta’s case (Supra) as under:-

“When the Court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It is the tax payer’s money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law.  It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund ‘immediately’ but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.”

8.      With this opinion, the appeal is dismissed.

 

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

November 29th, 2016

Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K