BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.120/14.

Date of instt.: 05.06.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 12.05.2015.

Nafe Singh son of Diwan Singh, aged 55 years, r/o VPO Shimla, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. SDO ‘OP’ UHBVN Kalayat.

2. Secretary, UHBVN Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

..……..Opposite Parties.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Anil Chutani, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Jagdeep Dhull, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he applied for tubewell connection with the Ops in the year 2008 vide application No.3118 AP dt. 29.12.2008 and deposited the security amount of Rs.500/- and also submitted the necessary and required documents with the Op No.1.  It is alleged that the complainant visited the office of Op No.1 several times and requested to release the tubewell connection to the complainant but the Op No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  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 the complainant applied with the Ops for getting the tubewell connection vide sales circular No.77/2001 and 87/2001 and deposited the security amount of Rs.500/- vide application No.3118 dt. 29.12.2008.  The SDO ‘OP’ UHBVN Kalayat issued the demand notice dt. 07.02.2009 to the complainant in which the complainant was directed to deposit the amount of Rs.20,000/- and additional payment of Rs.7,000/- per span, but the complainant failed to deposit the above-said amount with the answering Ops.  It is also pertinent to mention here that the answering Ops once again issued a notice, in which the complainant was directed to give consent for execution of work under self execution scheme within seven days but the complainant never responded the above-said notice.  So, the application of complainant was cancelled by the SDO Divisional Kalayat due to non-compliance of notice dt. 07.02.2009 and 01.04.2009.  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 their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Undisputedly, the complainant had applied for tubewell  connection vide application No.3118/AP dt 29.12.2008.  According to the complainant, the applicant duly deposited the security fee & had complied with all the formalities as required by the Opposite parties i.e. submission of test report & bills of motor.  Although the opposite parties have denied to have completed the formalities by the complainant, but no such notice to the applicant for non- compliance of the requirements was ever proved to be given by the opposite parties.  As such, this plea of the opposite parties is not tenable. The Ld. Counsel for the Ops contended that the complainant did not deposit the requisite amount nor completed the other requisite formalities of UHBVN and in view of sales circular no.77/01 and 87/01, the applicant is bound to deposit the balance amount & as such the applicant/ complainant  was required to deposit Rs.20,000/- + Rs. 7,000/-. 

7.     For the reasons recorded above, we hereby allow this complaint, subject to the condition of fulfillment of requirements as per sales circular No.77/2001.  Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order to the parties. 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.12.05.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.