BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.110/15.

Date of instt.: 04.06.2015. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 21.01.2016.

Gurnam son of Sh. Ramdia, resident of Village Deoban, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Sub Divisional Officer, UHBVN Ltd. Rajound, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

2. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Secretary.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Krishan Dhull, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                        ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he received a tubewell connection bearing No.NP-S3/2267 and he has been paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that when the complainant applied for tubewell connection, at that time, the Ops received an amount of Rs.49,000/- i.e. Rs.7,000/- per span/poll and Rs.1,000/- for electric meter on 09.11.2005 but lateron, the Ops installed only five span as per site plan.  It is further alleged that the complainant moved many applications to the Ops to return excess amount which was deposited by the complainant on 09.11.2005 but the Ops refused to return or adjust the amount of Rs.14,000/-.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true and material facts are that at the time of preparing the estimate, seven spans were found required for release the connection in favour of complainant.  So, an amount of Rs.49,000/- @ Rs.7,000/- per span was got deposited from the complainant.  In between another connection was released near the proposed site of complainant, so, distance of proposed site for releasing the connection in favour of complainant reduced from seven to five span.  So, the complainant was requested to submit the B.A.16 in original i.e. receipt of Rs.49,000/- with the Ops so that the amount of Rs.14,000/- could be adjusted/refunded in the account of complainant, but the complainant did not submit the above-said B.A.16 in original with the Ops, so, without submitting the original receipt of payment i.e. B.A.16 in original, affidavit and completing all the requisite formalities of UHBVN, the amount of Rs.14,000/- cannot be adjusted/refunded in favour of complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark-A to Mark-G and closed evidence on 14.10.2015.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.R1 and closed evidence on 07.01.2016.  

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

5.     From the pleadings and the evidence available on the file, we found that the complainant applied for tubewell connection with the Ops and the Ops received an amount of Rs.49,000/- i.e. Rs.7,000/- per span and Rs.1,000/- for electric meter on 09.11.2005 but the Ops have installed only five span as per site plan.  The complainant requested the Ops several times to refund Rs.14,000/- but the Ops did not do so.  The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of applications dt. 16.08.2011 and dt. 17.09.2013 regarding refund/adjust of excessive amount, Mark-A, Mark-B and copy of receipts Mark-E to Mark-G.  On the other hand, the Ops stated that the complainant was requested to submit the B.A. 16 in original i.e. receipt of Rs.49,000/-, affidavit and other documents with the Ops so that the amount of Rs.14,000/- could be adjusted/refunded in the account of complainant the Ops but the complainant did not submit the above-said documents.  The Ops tendered only the affidavit of Sh. Satyawan Nain, S.D.O and did not produce any evidence.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

6.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to refund Rs.14,000/- to the complainant, subject to submission of B.A.16, affidavit and other documents as required by the Ops and further to pay Rs.1100/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges.  Let the order be complied within 30 days after submission of B.A.16 and other documents by the complainant with the Ops, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its payment.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.21.01.2016.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.