Haryana

Karnal

CC/37/2016

Dharmender Alias Babbal S/o Ram Saran - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N.K. Zak

16 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No.37 of 2016

                                                      Date of instt. 02.02.2016

                                                      Date of decision 16.04.2018

 

Dharmender alias Babbal son of Ram Saran, resident of House no.228, Moti Nagar, near K.R. Cinema, Karnal.                                                                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                                Versus              

 

1. SDO (OP) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sub Urban, Sub Division, Model Town, Karnal.

2. Ram Saran @ Lilu Ram son of Shri Rulia Ram resident of 127, Kot Mohalla, Karnal.

                                                                    ..…..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma………Member     

 

 Present   Shri N.K.ZakAdvocate for complainant.

                  Shri Yashvir Singh Advocate for OP no.1.

                   Shri Balwan Singh Advocate for OP no.2

                  

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection, vide account no.4795372299 with a sanction load of 2 KW with single phase meter. The said connection was sanctioned in the month of November 2015 but the said connection was disconnected by the OP without any reason or without giving any opportunity of hearing and illegally removed the meter of complainant on 22.01.2016, vide permanent disconnection order dated 18.1.2016, at about 7.00 p.m. There is no outstanding dues are pending against the complainant and the first bill is yet to be served. The house in question was in the name of father of complainant and a copy of sale deed is submitted alongwith application and the complainant has fulfilled all the requirements for sanctioning an electricity connection.  Due to disconnection of electricity connection the complainant and his family members are suffering mental agony, tension and harassment. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and cause of action and complaint is an abuse of the process of law and has been filed with ulterior motive. On merits, it is submitted that the father of the complainant is owner of the property in which connection was installed and he moved application that his son has not taken NOC from him and as such said connection be disconnected. Accordingly, the OPs after adopting due and legal procedure disconnected the connection in question. It is further submitted that the electricity connection of the complainant was rightly disconnected by the OP as the complainant failed to fulfill the required formalities of the Nigam. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its separate written statement stating therein that the complainant is neither owner nor legally possessing the property, hence cannot be apply for an electric connection without the consent of the owner. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 24.10.2017.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Virender Kumar SDO Ex.DW1/A and documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D7. OP2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ram Saran Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed their evidence on 19.3.2018 and 16.11.2017 respectively.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             The learned counsel for complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant is permanent resident of abovesaid address and was sanctioned a domestic connection bearing account no.4795372299 in the said premises with 2KW load in November 2015. But said connection was disconnected by OP without any reason and removed the meter on 22.01.2016 vide permanent disconnection order dated 18.01.2016. No dues were pending against the complainant. He also argued that said house was in the name of father of the complainant.

8.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP(lateron converted as OP no.1) argued that the case is not maintainable as the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint because the complainant got installed the connection in his name by concealing the true facts. He further argued that as admitted by the complainant, the property i.e. the house in question was owned by the father of complainant and his father has moved application for disconnection of the connection in question because his son (i.e. complainant) has not taken the NOC from him. He further argued that accordingly the OP no.1, the OP no.1 after adopting the due and legal procedure, has disconnected the connection in question. He further argued that as per instruction of the Nigam, the NOC from the owner of the property is very much required and on coming to know of said fact, the complainant was duly intimated and was asked to submit the NOC from his father but he failed to do so, rather the father of complainant moved application for the disconnection of said connection and accordingly same was disconnected.

9.             It is pertinent to mention here that the father of complainant namely Ram Saran moved an application under order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading him party as OP no.2 and he was impleaded as OP no.2 in the complaint, who filed his separate written statement. The learned counsel for OP no.2 argued that it is a fact that the complainant is neither owner nor legally possessing the property i.e. house in question, hence the complainant cannot apply for the electric connection without the consent of the owner, therefore, the complainant had got installed the connection in question by concealing the true facts. He further argued that the court of Shri Puneet Sehgal, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Karnal has decreed the suit of OP no.2 against the complainant vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.2012 and ordered that the plaintiff i.e. OP no.2 is entitled to vacant possession of the house in dispute within a period of two months. The appeal filed by complainant has been dismissed by the court of Shri Vimal Sapra, learned ADJ, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015. He further argued that the suit filed by complainant for permanent injunction against OP no.1 and his brother has been dismissed regarding the electric connection in the name of his brother Mohinder Kumar in the house in dispute and the complainant has also concealed these facts from this Forum.

10.            From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the house where the complainant got installed the electric connection in question owned by his father and the said connection has been disconnected by the OP no.1 on the application of the father of the complainant i.e. owner of the house in question after following the due and legal procedure. It is pertinent to mention here that the connection in question was restored by the OP no.1 as per order dated 10.02.2016 passed by this Forum. The contention of the OP no.1 that as per instruction of the Nigam, NOC from the owner is required for the installation of electric connection has force for which he referred the document Ex.D-2. The instruction mentioned in Ex.D-2 in clause 1.1.5 in this regard is very clear vide which proof of ownership or NOC is required. The complainant has failed to produce the NOC from his father rather the owner gave application for disconnection of the connection in question. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP no.1 has committed no mistake in disconnecting the connection of the complainant, which was disconnected after following the due procedure. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not disclosed the facts about the decisions of the civil courts passed against him which clearly shows that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum, so the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the relief claim. We found no deficiency on the part of the OP no.1.

11.            In view of the above discussions, we found no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 16.04.2018

                                                                       

                                                                         President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                        (Anil Sharma)

                          Member