Haryana

Karnal

CC/101/2016

Kuldeep Singh S/o Jai Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Surender Singh Chauhan

20 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.101 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt.31.03.2016

                                                         Date of decision:20.07.2018

 

Kuldeep Singh son of Late Shri Jai Pal son of Shri Mansa Ram, resident of village Shahapur, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. Sub Divisional Officer, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division Indri, District Karnal.

2. Executive Engineer, S/U Division no.1, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sector-12, Karnal.

3. Superintending Engineer, Uttri Hryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sector-12, Karnal.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

               

 

 Present  Shri S.S. Chauhan Advocate for complainant.

                 Shri Amit Munjal Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER

 

                   (Jagmal Singh, President)

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that father of the complainant is recorded co-owner in exclusive possession of the agricultural land in khasra no.17 out of the total land measuring 34K-16M, situated at village Shahpur, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal vide Jamabandi for the year 2008-2009. The father of the complainant died on 26.11.2015. After the death of his father complainant being his legal heir inherited his estate vide a registered Will dated 19.05.2009. It is pertinent to mention here that every killa number cannot be cultivated by each co-sharer, as such as per the suitability of the co-sharer, a family settlement/oral partition arrived between all the co-owners and the khasra no.17 of Rect. No.10 came in share of the father of the complainant and as such the father of the complainant was in exclusive possession of the same. It is pertinent to mention here that a common tubewell alongwith electric connection was installed by all the co-sharers in the kill number 24/1 and the joint electric connection of the same bearing no.1191-X, is sanding in the name of Shri Hari Singh (uncle of the complainant). Even during the life time of the father of the complainant, the cousin of the complainant namely Anil Kumar son of Shri Ved Parkash, who is also co-sharer in the aforesaid land, always created problems in the irrigation of the land by the father of the complainant from the aforesaid common tubewell. Thereafter, the father of the complainant was compelled to file the civil suit for declaration and injunctions against the aforesaid Anil Kumar and others which is now pending before the civil court, Indri.  Moreover, the father of complainant applied for a new electric connection with the OP no.1 and also got installed his bore in his aforesaid khasra no.17. The father of the complainant also deposited the security amount with the OPs and completed all other requisite formalities as required by the OPs. OP no.1 sent a demand letter bearing no.3465 dated 24.4.2011 and demanded Rs.20,000/- consent money and Rs.7000/- per span (pole) from the father of the complainant and same was deposited with the OP no.1 by his father. After receiving the requisite amount and completing the formalities, the OPs also installed the electric poles for the new connection in the name of the father of the complainant. The father of the complainant also purchased a mono-block motor for his new tubewell from M/s Singh Ram Dharam Veer, Hardware Merchants, Indri vide receipt dated 28.4.2011 as per the requirements of the OPs. Due to inimical approach of aforesaid Anil Kumar etc. towards the family of the complainant, they want to blackmail and harass the complainant an on their instance the OPS withheld the electric tubewell connection of the complainant illegally without any rhyme and reason. Earlier the father of the complainant and now complainant many times visited to the office of OP no.1 and requested the officials to issue his aforesaid electric connection and also requested to the OPs that they are ready to give undertaking that if the said khasra number came to the share of any other co-sharer, then they would take the price of the bore and get the said connection transferred in his share. But the officials of OP no.1 did not pay any heed to their request. Thereafter, complainant and his father visited the office of OPs and requested to issue the aforesaid connection but OPs always lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. 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 jurisdiction; maintainability; the complainant is not consumer and the controversy involved in the complaint is not a consume dispute; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parities and concealment of true and material facts except application under section 22-C before PLA one more civil suit is being contested by present complainant titled Jai Pal Versus UHBVN and others and same in which same relief is claimed as in the present complaint. So as per settled law complainant cannot seek same relief from different courts/forum.  On merits, it is submitted that one more civil suit is being contested by present complainant titled Jai Pal Versus UHBVN & Other in which same relief is claimed as in the present complaint. It is further stated that the father of the complainant had applied for new electric connection with the OPs and deposited the security amount but it is pertinent to mention here that complainant has not completed all the required formalities. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of applying the connection the applicant stated that the land is which is getting connection has been partitioned but lateron it has been revealed that said land has so far not being partitioned between the co-sharers as Anil Kumar son of Ved Parkash moved an application in this regard to the office of defendant no.2 wrote letter to the applicant to produce document of partition of said land but he failed to do so. It is submitted that when the land is joint and there are co-owners then before releasing the electric connection NOC must be obtained from each co-owners regarding the electric connection. It is further submitted that complainant has not received any service from the OP and so he is not a consumer for the OP. Depositing of security amount to the OPs does not make the complainant a consumer. As there are other formalities which are not fulfilled by the complainant. 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.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 20.3.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Ravinder Kuamr Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 5.6.2018.

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

6.             From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the father of the complainant was the co-owner in the land at village Shahpur who died on 26.11.2015. During his life time, the father of the complainant namely Jaipal applied for an electricity connection for tubewell for agricultural purposes and the OPs have issued a letter dated 24.4.2011 and demanded Rs.20,000/- consent money and Rs.7000/- per span and the same were deposited.

7.             According to the complainant, the OPs are not releasing the connection which was applied by his father. According to the OPs the complainant is not their consumer. The complainant had not applied with the required formality of the OP. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts besides application under section 22-C before Permanent Lok Adalat, the father of the complainant filed a civil suit titled as Jaipal Versus UHBVN & Other in which the same relief was claimed by the complainant.

8.             It is admitted case of the parties that father of the complainant has applied for electricity connection for agriculture purposes and the said connection was not released during his life time. In our view simply by applying for electricity connection, the complainant cannot come under the definition of consumer. This argument of the OPs has force the complainant is not their consumer.

9.             The complainant, has admitted in his complaint about filing of application under section 22C of the legal services authority Act 1987 but the complainant has concealed the fact that his father has filed a civil suit in which after the death of his father the complainant had become the plaintiff. In that suit also the same relief was claimed by the complainant. The complainant has not disclosed the fact regarding the filing of the civil suit, therefore, the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. So the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for OPs produced the certified copy of plaint, certified copy of written statement of defendant no.1 ( i.e.OP no.1), certified copy of written statement of defendants no.4 and 5, certified copy of application for bringing the LRs of deceased Jaipal on the file and certified copy of order dated 4.5.2018 passed by ACJ (Sr. Division) Indri. On perusal of the plaint of the civil suit’ Jaipal Versus UHBVN and others it has become clear that the same relief was sought in that suit by the father of the complainant and thereafter by the complainant. The said suit was filed by the father of the complainant on 19.2.2015 whereas the present complaint was filed by the complainant on 31.3.2016. The fact of filing of said civil suit has not been disclosed by the complainant in the present complaint, therefore, the complainant has concealed the material facts and is not entitled for the relief claimed. It is also mentioned here that no doubt the complainant has withdrawn the said civil suit on 4.5.2018 but this does not effect the matter.

10.            The OPs have produced the sale instruction no.U-13/2003 vide which the necessary requirements were issued for releasing the tubewell connection under general category to individual where ownership of the Land is in the Joint name. According to these instruction one of the requirement is that the connection may be released after providing the affidavit of other co-owners regarding the fact that they have no objection in releasing the tubewell connection in the joint land besides the other requirement of the OPs but the complainant has failed to fulfill these requirements of the OPs. It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of complainant, the other co-sharers had moved an application that the connection may not be released in the name of complainant in the joint owned land. From these facts, it is clear that the co-sharers has objection in releasing the connection in question. Due to this reason the OPs have not issued the connection in question to the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs by leading cogent evidence. Hence we found no deficiency on the part of the OPs.

11.            In view of the reasons discussed above, 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: 20.07.2018

                                                                       

                                                                         President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                        Anil Sharma                   Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                          Member