Haryana

Karnal

242/14

Karnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO Uttar Haryana Bijle Vitran Nigam Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajbir Singh

23 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.242 of 214

                                                              Date of instt. 29.08.2014

                                                                Date of decision:23.05.2016

 

 Karnail Singh son of Shri Sandhu Ram resident of village Khurdban Tehsil and District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN Ltd. Garhi Birbal, tehsil Indri District Karnal.

 

                                                                                    ……… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh. Rajbir Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. Pawan Kajal Advocate for the Opposite parties.

 

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he applied to opposite party for obtaining electric connection for tubewell, on 13.8.2009, vide application no.13256/AP and deposited an amount of Rs.2750/- as security, vide BA no.050846/289 dated 13.8.2009. He also deposited an amount of Rs.425/- as Advance Consumption Deposit (ACD) charges, vide BA no. 050846/289 on the same day. The opposite party launched a scheme known as TATKAL and he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- under that scheme, if he wanted to get the electric connection immediately. Therefore, as per instruction of the opposite party he deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/-, vide receipt /BA Mp/629/340 dated 13.9.2011. He was assured that his electric connection would be released within a month. However, the opposite party has not released the electric connection to him despite his repeated visits and requests. He is a small farmer and has to purchase water from other persons for irrigating his land. In June, 2014 he visited the office of opposite parties and requested for releasing the connection on the ground that those who had applied for connection much after his application were released connection, but the official of the opposite party demanded illegal gratification from him and when he refused to pay he was threatened that he will have to face consequences. Thereafter, the opposite party sent letter bearing memo no.852 dated 23.7.2014 asking him deposit Rs.84070/- within three months, otherwise his application would be cancelled. He approached the opposite party for withdrawal of the said demand, but opposite party refused to accede his request. The acts and conduct of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite party. Opposite party put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint in view of provisions of section 145 of the Indian Electricity Act.

                   On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant applied for electric connection and deposited the required fee of Rs.2750/- and ACD charges of Rs.425/- on 13.8.2009. It has further been admitted that the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/-under TATKAL Scheme on 13.9.2011. It has been submitted that as per the instruction of the Nigam estimate for releasing the electric connection was prepared and notice demanding an amount of Rs.25000/- as two span charges and consent money of Rs.10,000/- i.e. total amount of Rs.35000/- was sent to complainant but he did not bother. Last notice to him was sent on 9.2.2015, but despite that he has not deposited the said amount, therefore, his connection has not been released. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex. C2 to Ex.C5 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of D.S.Verma Sub Divisional Officer Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 and Ex.R3 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant deposited security and ACD charges for getting electric connection for his tubewell on 13.8.2009. He further deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- under Tatkal Scheme on 13.9.2011. However, the opposite party has raised further demand of Rs.35000/- i.e. Rs.25000/- for two span charges and Rs.10,000/- as consent money.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the demand of Rs.35000/- has been raised from the complainant as per sales circular no.U-25/2013, the copy of which is Ex.O3. Complainant had not deposited any amount except ACD upto 1.1.2011, therefore, he was required to deposit Rs.30,000/- as consent money plus Rs.12500/- per span for release of his connection, but he deposited only Rs.20,000/- as consent money and did not deposit the balance amount of Rs.35,000/-, therefore, the opposite party was legally justified not to release the connection.

8.                On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant had for applied for electric connection on 13.08.2009 and deposited the security amount and ACD charges on 13.8.2009. He also deposited Rs.20,000/- under Tatkal Scheme. He was not required to deposit any further amount as span charges or additional consent money and the said sales circular is not applicable to his case.

 9.               A perusal of the copy of the sales circular no.U-25/2013 Ex.O3 makes its quite clear that the farmers who had applied for connection on or after 1.1.2011 or who had not deposited any amount except ACD would be required to deposit Rs.30,000/-+12500/- per span for release of connection. The complainant deposited the security and ACD on 13.8.2009. No other amount was deposited by him before 1.1.2011, rather he deposited the amount of Rs.20,000/- under Tatkal Scheme on 13.9.2011. Therefore, as per the said sales circular he was required to deposit Rs.30,000/- as consent money and Rs.12,500/- per span charges. The opposite party has produced the copy of the demand notice Ex.O2 sent to the complainant on 9.2.2015 demanding the balance amount i.e. Rs.10,000/- of the consent money and Rs.25,000/- as charges for two spans i.e. the total amount of Rs.35000/-. Thus, the demand of the opposite party cannot be termed as illegal or in violation of the sales circular in any manner.

10.              Faced with such situation, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party may not release connection to the complainant even after depositing the demanded amount of Rs.35,000/- as per his seniority. Learned counsel for the opposite party assured that the seniority of the complainant would be fixed on the day of depositing the amount of Rs.35000/- and connection would be release to him strictly accordance with the seniority.

11.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in observing that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, therefore, the complaint has not merit. Hence the complaint is hereby dismissed. However, it is ordered that the seniority of the complainant would be fixed on the day when he would deposit the demanded amount of Rs.35000/- and the connection would be released to him strictly in accordance with the seniority. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 23.05.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member