Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/349/2019

Rameshwar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    349 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         20.08.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 11.07.2022

 

Rameshwar Dass s/o Shri Bakhtawar, r/o village Kainthal Khurd, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                   Versus

 

1. SDO, Bijli Board, Kurukshetra, Sub Division No.2, District Kurukshetra.
2. CCO, Bijli Board, Kurukshetra Sub Division No.2, District Kurukshetra.
3. Executive Engineer, Kurukshetra, Sector-8, Sub Division No.2.

 

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri R.K. Taneja, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri H.S. Gaarcha, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that on 18.11.1999, father of complainant namely Bakhtawar had deposited the security amount with the OPs for tubewell connection vide receipt No.228/587 and A.P. No.9277. After depositing the security, SDO of OPs department, who was present at the site, told that it will take 2-3 years to make this connection operational and thereafter, his father inquired from OPs department, but SDO concerned told our number had not come yet. Again when in the year 2003, his father contacted the OPs, then SDO concerned told they will send the demand notice to our house as and when it received. Due to non-starting the connection, his father became mentally sick and in the year 2005, when he contacted the OPs, the SDO concerned told that they will take Rs.2,50,000/- to start the tubewell connection. In the year 2004, they installed a tubewell in their land but without electricity connection, it was impossible to use the said tubewell. Due to this problem, on 01.03.2016, his father had transferred the land in the name of him and his brother. In the year 2006, they again contacted the OPs department and SDO concerned again demanded Rs.2,50,000/- to start their connection. Because of this trouble, his father died on 27.03.2006. When in the year 2007 and then 2008, he approached the OPs, they told about missing their file. He approached the OPs department in the year 2009, 2010 and 2011 for taking the connection, but in the year 2012, the OPs department told that their connection had been cancelled and SDO Mehtab told their connection will be canceled until your file is found and demanded Rs.2,50,000/- to start the connection. Thereafter, on 12.12.2014, on the asking of CCO Raju Yadav, the complainant deposited fresh security amounting Rs.5450/- vide receipt No.199/94844, but despite lapse of one year, his connection was not released and in this regard, he moved a written complaint to SDO on 18.01.2016 and thereafter, on 15.02.2016, he moved his complaint before Chief Engineer, Sector-6, Panchkula and on his asking, he submitted his sworn affidavit regarding the expenditure of the connection. Due to non-releasing the tubewell connection, he purchased a new generator after spending Rs.57,000/-, so that farming can be done with its help. Due to non-working of old borewell for so many years, it become useless and that’s why he installed new borewell after spending Rs.40,000/-. Thereafter, on 27.09.2016, he lodged his complaint on CM Window vide complaint No.CMOAF/N/2016/077446. Thereafter, on 21.10.2016, he sought information from OPs department through RTI vide Postal No.92G150867, but due to non receiving the same, on 30.12.2016, he moved an application before OPs vide No.3418, but he got no information. On 04.02.2017, for taking the information, he sent an application to The Second Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, State Information Commissioner, Haryana and on the asking of said Commissioner, he got the required information from OPs, out of which, some information was correct, whereas, some information was wrong. For giving wrong information, the State Information Commissioner levied penalty of Rs.5000/- on OPs department. On 22.07.2017, the complainant again wrote a letter to State Information Commissioner to get Rs.5000/- as well as correct information. On 30.10.2017, the OPs given him one cheque of Rs.5000/-, but the problem of his connection was not resolved. According to the information received from OPs, their connection shown working on 10.03.2003 on some other tubewell and he made a complaint in this regard to the Commissioner on 13.12.2017. On 17.01.2018 the complainant went to the office of XEN for his connection, who marked his security letter to SDO Ranbir and said SDO marked the same to CCO and the said CCO told to him that his both files had been lost and when the same were traced, then they will release his connection. On 18.05.2018, the complainant lodged his complaint on CMO Window, vide complaint No.CMO/2018/054560, but all in vain. In June 2018, on the asking of CCO, he submitted his caste certificate. On 29.06.2018, the complainant lodged his complaint on CM Window vide complaint No.2018/074586, upon which, on 13.07.2018, the officer of CM Window called him and OPs in Circuit House, Kurukshetra, where, after hearing his problem and after inspecting all the documents, they directed SDO Vikasdeep Sharma to release his connection within 20 days, but after 20 days due to non-releasing his connection, on 03.08.2018, he lodged his complaint on CM window vide complaint No.2018/092033. When his grievance was not solved, then on 07.9.2018, he lodged his complaint in Deputy Commissioner Office, Kurukshetra. From the newspaper Punjab Kesari, he came to know about Lok Adalat, Panchkula and on 12.09.2018, he along with his son reached there and on their asking, on 19.09.2018, he reached in the meeting of CGRF in OPs office at Sector-8, Kurukshetra, where, after hearing his complaint, Chairman B.G. Garg checked their documents and listened their problem and asked to SDO Vikasdeep Sharma immediately release their connection, who told that since their father had been died, therefore, their connection could not be released, upon which, Chairman said, for which land they are demanding the connection, that land is still with them. The news regarding reprimand by Chairman G.S Garg to SDO and asking to give him demand notice, was published on 13.12.2018 in Amar Ujala newspaper at Page No.3. On 14.12.2018, all the grievance of the complainant was again published on first page of Amar Ujala. After reprimanding the officers and SDO of OPs in the C.G.R.F meeting, on 18.01.2019 the complainant received the demand notice with four conditions i.e. to deposit Rs.30,000/-, challan form of Rs.500/-, receipts of motor and compesster and test report and complainant fulfilled all these four conditions within one month and deposited the same with OPs, but despite that, his tubewell connection has not been released. The complainant is doing the farming with the help of generator and had spent Rs.90,000/- to irrigate his land. From 1999 to 2013, the OPs department had made operative all the connections. For his connection, neither there is need of pole nor the electricity wires of 1100 volts, because, both these items are available at the site and he in need of only transformer. It is prayed that in view of above facts, action should be taken against the OPs officers/officials and his tubewell connection be immediately released along with the compensation amount.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statements, raising preliminary objections regarding time barred; cause of action; non-maintainability, locus-standi, jurisdiction and complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. It is further submitted that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands. The true facts are that the complainant had not completed all the formalities as per rules, Act and sale circular of the Nigam for the alleged tubewell connection nor submitted the same in the office of OPs till date. The conduct and behavior of complainant is worst and used to raise quarrel with OPs without any cause and the FIR No.0432 dated 22.05.2019 u/ss 186,332,34,353 and 427 of IPC has been registered against him in PS City Thanesar. No such demand of Rs.2,50,000/- was ever made to the father of complainant. Due to delay caused by the complainant and his father, the file of connection was missing and DDR was lodged on 11.05.2017 with PS City Thanesar. When complainant was informed regarding missing of his file in the year 2007-2008, then he was required to file fresh file and to complete all the formalities for getting the connection, but he had not done so. The complainant had not deposited Rs.30,000/- with the OPs and has not completed the other three conditions of the demand notice, wherein it is specifically mentioned that in case the complainant will not complied all the four conditions within 3 months, then his application for tubewell connection will be considered as cancelled, hence his said application is deemed to be cancelled. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

4.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-57 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the OPs has firstly raised objection that the present complaint is time barred as the complainant can file the present complaint within two years from the date of death of his father on 27.03.2006, but he filed the same on 20.08.2019, as such, same is liable to be dismissed on this score only. But this Commission has found no force in this contention of the OPs, because, perusal of case file shows that there are continuous cause of action arises between the complainant and the OPs, from the year 1999, when father of complainant deposited the security amount for his tubewell connection with the OPs, till the year 2019, when OPs issued demand notice Ex.C-50 on 18.01.2019 to the complainant. Needles to mention here that cause of action, if any arose to the complainant to file the complaint before this Commission in the year 2019 and counting two year from that year, complainant can file the complaint before this Commission till the year 2021, but the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 20.08.2019 i.e. well within the limitation period of two years. As such, this contention of OPs is not tenable, hence rejected.

8.                Learned counsel for the OPs has raised another objection that the complainant is not the consumer of OPs, as such, present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and same is hereby dismissed on this score also. Perusal of case file shows that initially, on 18.11.1999, father of complainant deposited the security amount of Rs.180/- with the OPs regarding his tubewell connection and from that period till the year 2019, there is continuous correspondence between them. Moreover, on 18.01.2019, the OPs issued demand notice Ex.C-50 to the complainant and the complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- with the OPs against that demand notice, as such, the complainant hiring the services of the OPs department regarding his tubewell connection. So, in this regard the objection taken by the OPs has also no force, hence rejected.

9.                Now coming on the merits of the complaint.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in the year 1999, father of complainant had applied for electricity tubewell connection by depositing the requisite fees with the OPs as well as completing all the formalities, but till the date of filing the present complaint, the OPs had neither released the same even to his father nor to him, which amounts to grave deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise on the part of OPs. During the course of his lengthy arguments, learned counsel for the complainant reiterated to all the allegations made into his complaint and prayed for allowing the present complaint.

11.              On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs in the course of his arguments, mainly argued that no doubt father of complainant had applied for a electricity tubewell connection in the year 1999, but when in the year 2006-07, his file was lost and DDR was lodged on 11.05.2017 with PS City Thanesar, then it was incumbent upon complainant to apply fresh connection, but he did not do so. He further argued that conduct and behavior of complainant is worst and used to raise quarrel with OPs without any cause and the FIR No.0432 dated 22.05.2019 u/ss 186,332,34,353 and 427 of IPC has been registered against him in PS City Thanesar. No such demand of Rs.2,50,000/- was ever made to the father of complainant. The complainant had not deposited Rs.30,000/- with the OPs and has not completed the other three conditions of the demand notice, wherein it is specifically mentioned that in case the complainant will not complied all the four conditions within 3 months, then his application for tubewell connection will be considered as cancelled, hence his said application is deemed to be cancelled. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

12.              There is no dispute that on 18.11.1999, father of complainant had applied for tubewell connection by depositing security amount of Rs.180/- with the OPs vide receipt No.228 dated 18.11.1999 A.P. No.9277 Ex.C-1.

13.              The learned counsel for the complainant alleged that in the year 1999, father of complainant applied for tubewell connection by depositing security amount with the OPs and from that date till today, his father and then the complainant is continuously connecting the OPs in this regard, but till today, they did not release his tubewell connection. All the allegations leveled by the complainant, against the OPs department (serial-wise), which was duly supported by documentary evidence, reads as under:-

1. That after applying for said tubewell connection, the SDO concerned told that it will take 2-3 years to install the same and in the year 2005, the SDO concerned demanded bribe of Rs.2,50,000/- to start his tubewell connection, but they showed their inability to pay the same. It is further alleged that in the year 2004 they installed a new tubewell in their land.
2. That due to this problem, his father had transferred the land in his and his brother’s name vide Will dated 01.03.2006 and produced the same on the case file as Ex.C-4. Due to stress of this problem, his father was expired on 27.03.2006 vide Death Certificate Ex.C-3.
3. That in the year 2007 and then 2008, when he approached to OPs department, they told about missing their file. He approached the OPs department in the year 2009, 2010 and then 2011 in this regard, but all in vain.
4. That on 12.12.2014, on the asking of SDO Raju Yadav, he deposited fresh security amounting Rs.5450/- vide receipt No.199/94844 Ex.C-5, but despite lapse of one year, his tubewell connection was not released and on the asking of OPs, he submitted his duly sworn affidavit dated 15.02.2016 with OPs Ex.C-6, which was duly endorsed by the OPs department.
5. That due to non-releasing his tubewell connection, he purchased a new generator after spending Rs.57,500/- vide receipt Ex.C-7, so that farming can be done with its help. Due to non-working of old borewell for so many years, the same become useless and that’s why he installed new borewell after spending Rs.40,000/-.
6. That on 21.10.2016, he sought information from the OPs department through RTI vide document Ex.C-9 and when said information was not supplied to him, then again on 30.12.2016, he moved an application before the OPs department Ex.C-10. On 04.02.2017, for taking the information, he sent an application to The State Information Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh to get the required information from OPs, as such, the OPs reply/provided the information Ex.C-13 & Ex.C-14, out of which, some information was correct, whereas, some information was wrong. The State Information Commissioner wrote a letter dated 12.07.2017 to the OPs department directing to supply the requisite information to the complainant under RTI act and also imposed a penalty of Rs.5000/- in this regard on the OPs department. On 17.10.2017, the State Information Commissioner again sent a letter to the OPs department directing to supply the requisite information to the complainant within a week positively. On 30.10.2017, the OPs given him one cheque of Rs.5000/-, but the problem of his connection was not resolved.
7. That according to the information received from OPs through RTI, in document Ex.C-15 at Sr. No.6584, his connection bearing No.AP-9277 was shown closed and there is cutting in his entry, whereas, in document Ex.C-16, at Sr. No.6694, his connection showing working on 10.03.2003 on some other tubewell. From the perusal of documents Ex.C-15 and Ex.C-16, this allegation of complainant found plausible.
8. That on 11.04.2017, the complainant wrote letters to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India as well as to the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra in this regard vide letters Ex.C-21 and Ex.C-22 respectively.
9. That as per OPs department his file was lost/missing in the year 2006-2007, but the OPs lodged DDR in this regard on 11.05.2017 Ex.C-25 i.e. after a lapse of period of ten years.
10. That on 17.01.2018 the complainant went to the office of XEN  regarding releasing his tubewell connection, who marked his security letter to SDO Ranbir and said SDO marked the same to CCO and the said CCO told to him that his both files had been lost and when the same were traced, then they will release his connection. The said letter is Ex.C-29.
11. That on 07.09.2018, he wrote a letter to Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra Ex.C31 and to SDO, Kurukshetra to release his connection Ex.C-39 dated 25.10.2018 and thereafter, on 15.11.2018 Ex.C-47, but all in vain.
12. That on 19.09.2018, he reached in the meeting of CGRF in OPs office at Sector-8, Kurukshetra, where, Chairman B.G. Garg asked to SDO Vikasdeep Sharma immediately release their connection. On 14.12.2018, all the grievance of the complainant was again published on first page of Amar Ujala Ex.C-49. It is further argued that after this publication, the OPs department gets in action and all the files were traced and on 18.01.2019, issued the demand notice Ex.C-50 to the complainant on his old application bearing receipt No.228/587, with four conditions, which were fulfilled by him. Meaning thereby, the files were in the custody of OPs and they were intentionally harassing the complainant from so long time but despite that, his tubewell connection has not been released by the OPs.
13. That from 1999 to 2013, the OPs department had made operative all the connections. For his connection, neither there is need of pole nor the electricity wires of 1100 volts, because, both these items are available at the site and he in need of only transformer. It is prayed that in view of above facts, action should be taken against the OPs officers/officials and his tubewell connection be immediately released along with the compensation amount.

14.              On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs firstly argued the conduct and behavior of complainant is worst and used to raise quarrel with OPs without any cause and the FIR No.0432 dated 22.05.2019 u/ss 186,332,34,353 and 427 of IPC has been registered against him in PS City Thanesar Ex.R-1. He further argued that complainant was also indulging in theft of electricity and in this regard, FIR bearing No.2249 dated 18.08.2020 u/s 135 and 152 of Electricity Act has been lodged against him vide documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R-4. In this regard, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had never made any quarrel with the OPs department. Since the father of complainant/complainant did not fulfill the bribe demand of Rs.2,50,000/- and honestly fighting for my tubewell connection and made various complaints regarding non-releasing of his tubewell connection to their higher authorities as well as to the higher administration officers, that’s why the OPs department had grudge in your mind towards him and involved him in the above false cases.

15.              The father of complainant had applied for an electricity connection of tubewell with the OPs in the year 1999 and the above both FIRs were lodged against the complainant in the year 2019 and 2020 respectively. Why the OPs had not released the electricity tubewell connection of complainant for more than 20 years i.e. from 1999 till lodging the above mentioned both FIRs even after completing all the formalities of demand notice Ex.C50 dated 18.01.2019 by the complainant? No satisfactory reply/evidence has been produced by the OPs in this regard, which creates serious doubt on the intention of the OPs and in this regard, the allegations of the complainant party that complainant/complainant that due to non-releasing their connection, they had made various complaints against the OPs to the higher authorities of OPs as well as higher Administration Officers and due to that, the OPs indulged the complainant party in false cases, can be believed. Moreover, these cases have not been decided yet now and on the basis of these FIRs, complainant cannot be held convicted, as these cases are still pending for adjudication.

16.               Learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that the complainant had not deposited Rs.30,000/- with the OPs and has not completed the other three conditions of the demand notice, within 3 months, that’s why his application for tubewell connection will be considered as cancelled. But this contention of the OPs has no force, because perusal of Demand Notice Ex.C-50, we found that this notice was issued by the OPs to the complainant on 18.01.2019, and as per OPs, counting the period of three months from the date of issuance of this notice, it comes to end till 17.04.2019, as such, the complainant was required to deposit the amount of Rs.30,000/- with the OPs on or before 17.04.2019 and perusal of Challan Form Ex.C-51 and receipt Ex.C-54, we found that the complainant deposited challan fees of Rs.500/- and fees of Rs.30,000/- on 13.02.2019 i.e. well within the time of three months. The OPs further contended that the OPs had not completed the required formalities of said Demand Notice Ex.C-50, but it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs had not explained, as to which formalities, the complainant had not fulfilled, which were necessary for obtaining of tubewell electric connection. As such, the above contentions of the OPs has no force, hence rejected.

17.               So, keeping in view the above detailed facts and circumstances of the case, we found that on 18.11.1999, father of complainant had applied for a tubewell connection vide receipt No.228/587 and after depositing the same, till the date of filing the present complaint in the year 2019, father of complainant/complainant were continuously approaching the OPs to release their  tubewell connection, but the OPs did not release the same, rather as per complainant, they demanded bribe of Rs.2,50,000/- to release the same, which was not paid by him being a poor person. Due to not paying the bribe amount, the OPs party kept grudge in their mind against the complainant party and did not release his connection till the year 2006-07, rather in order to harass the complainant party, in the year 2007-2008, they told the complainant that his file has been lost/missing and asked him to file fresh application for release of his tubewell connection, but in this regard, the OPs lodged the DDR in the police station on 11.05.2017 i.e. after about ten years of alleged lost/missing, which creates serious doubt to the story of the OPs. Moreover, the OPs had not cancelled the said application of the complainant, rather they issued the Demand Notice Ex.C-50 on 18.01.2019, on the earlier application No.228/587 of the complainant instead of his fresh application bearing No.199/94844, meaning thereby, the earlier file No.228/587 of complainant was not lost, as alleged by the complainant and in order to harass the complainant party, the OPs falsely told to the complainant regarding lost of his file and had not released his tubewell connection on this very ground for a long long period of more than 20 years, which also puts serious question mark on the fair working of the OPs. The complainant sought various information from the OPs department through RTI, but they even did not provide the same and in this regard, when he written a complaint to State Information Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, who not only scolded the OPs department, but also levied penalty of Rs.5,000/- upon the OPs department on 12.7.2017 for not providing timely information to the complainant under RTI Act. Moreover, in document Ex.C-15 at Sr. No.6584, connection of complainant bearing No.AP-9277 was shown closed and there is cutting in the said entry, whereas, in document Ex.C-16, at Sr. No.6694, the said connection showing working on 10.03.2003 on some other tubewell, which is not understandable. On 19.09.2018, complainant went in the meeting of CGRF and raised his grievance there and on 14.12.2018, the grievance of the complainant was published on first page of Amar Ujala and after this publication, the OPs department gets in action and the files of complainant were traced and on 18.01.2019, the complainant received the demand notice with four conditions from the OPs and the complainant timely deposited the requisite charges with the OPs, but even then, the OPs failed to release his tubewell connection till today.

18.              Certainly the electricity department i.e. OPs Nigam is legitimate authority duly constituted under the Power Department having the norms, instructions, Sales Circulars, Sales Manuals under the guidance of provisions of Indian Electricity Act and in order to keep and maintain the various affairs of the Nigam, more particularly, to provide the electricity connections to its proposed consumers, is also guided by its Sales Manual vide its Instruction No.26, which provides time limit of three months for grant of connection(s) of tubewell to the consumers. A farmer need water to grow crops in his fields, for this, he is dependent on the tubewell/borewell and electricity connection is must required to operate the tubewell, because, without the electricity connection, the tubewell/ borewell is useless, but in the present case, from the year 1999 (when complainant party deposited security amount of tubewell connection with the OPs) till 20.08.2019 (date when complainant filed the present complaint) i.e. after a lapse of long long period of about 20 years, the OPs had not released the electricity connection for the borewell/tubewell of the complainant without any fault on his part, due to that, complainant purchased generator set after spending Rs.57,500/- and also compelled to install a new borewell after spending Rs.40,000/- on it. In the year 2004, the complainant installed a borewell, but without electricity connection, the said borewell became useless, that’s why complainant installed a new borewell. The complainant lodged various complaints of OPs department to their higher authorities as well as Administration Authorities for not releasing his tubewell connection, due to that, the OPs department kept grudge in their mind about the complainant party, and in order to harass and teach a lesson to the complainant, it can be assumed that the OPs entangled him in electricity theft case as well as other criminal cases. A farmer/agriculturist does not get time from fields work to earn his livelihood, but in the present case, the complainant party/farmer, in order to get released his tubewell electricity connection to grow crops in his fields, wandering from door to door and made day and night one since the year 1999, absolutely without no fault on his part, but it is a matter of great regret that till waiting for a long long period of about 20 years, his tubewell electricity connection has not been released by the OPs, due to that, the complainant suffered huge financial loss, mental agony and financial harassment, which is not only grave deficiency in service on the part of OPs, but also an act of unfair trade practise on the part of OPs. In the circumstances referred above, the OPs, not only liable to release the tubewell electricity connection of the complainant immediately, but also liable to be penalized with heavy penalty in the shape of compensation and litigation expenses in order to compensate the complainant.  

19.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OPs and direct them jointly and severally to release/install the tubewell electricity connection of the complainant in question, as applied for by father of the complainant in the year 1999 vide receipt Ex.C-1, as per that old scheme, existing at that time within the period of one month positively, failing which, the OPs department shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month, after expiry of period of one month, from the date of this order, till the date of actual release/install of electricity tubewell connection in favour of the complainant by the OPs. The OPs are jointly and severally further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant party, due to an act of gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise on their part, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of one month positively, from the date of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:11.07.2022.

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                  DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.