Haryana

Karnal

CC/65/2016

Brij Pal S/o Kalecter Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Surender Singh Chauhan

11 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.65 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 02.03.2016

                                                         Date of decision:11.01.2018

 

Brij Pal son of Shri Kalecter Singh, resident of village Dadlana, Tehsil and District Panipat.

                                                                                                                                                                           …….Complainant.   

                                        Versus

 

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

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

3. Superintending Engineer, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Kunjpura Road, 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:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that his father had purchased the agricultural land measuring 58K-10M and  land measuring 3K-14M,, situated at village Haibatpur, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal from Smt. Jaraso Devi wife of Shri Zile Singh vide registered sale deeds bearing no.40/1 dated 25.4.2008 and 687/1 dated 19.12.2008 respectively, alongwith all the rights appurtenant thereto including rasta, gohar, canal water, tubewell connection, electric meter no.HR-11, Smursible tubewell/bor, Khotha, tees, which was in the name of Jaraso Devi, vide sale deed no.1198/1 dated 24.2.2006 executed and registered  by Tehal Singh, Baldev Singh, Hardev Singh sons of Labh Singh and Smt. Suukhdev Kaur daughter of Labh Singh, in her favour alongwith their aforesaid all the rights.  It is pertinent to mention here that the abovesaid connection still stands in the name of  Labh Singh father of aforesaid Tehal Singh etc. After the execution and registration of the aforesaid sale deeds the father of complainant become the owner in possession of the aforesaid tubewell and electric connection legally and moved an application for transfer of the connection in his name to the OPs.  The father of complainant died on 25.5.2015 and thereafter complainant alongwith his brother namely Kushal Pal and Manoj Kumar inherited his properties vide mutation no.532 dated 20.7.2015 and using the aforesaid electric connection. Now the complainant moved an application alongwith copy of sale deed for transferring the aforesaid electric connection in  his name and his brothers and they also ready to deposit the requisite fees with the OPs, but the officials of OP no.1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way OPs are deficient in their services by non-transferring the electric connection in the name of the complainant. 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 locus standi; complainant is not a consumer of the OPs; non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; jurisdiction and complainant has not come with clean hand and concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. On merits, it has been submitted that the father of the complainant never moved any application for transfer of name and further as and when complainant approached the OPs for transfer of said connection then complainant was asked to submit the copy of sale deed, mutation, sketch where this tubewell installed, NOC of LRs, of previous consumer and the NOC of other co-sharers etc. but complainant has never supplied  the said documents in the office of the OPs and as such there arises no question at all of denying to transfer the connection in question. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed the evidence on 11.4.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Ram Bhaj SDO Ex.OP1/A and document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 28.9.2017.

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.             The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the father of the complainant had purchased agricultural land measuring 58K-10M and 3K-14M situated at village Haibatpur from Smt. Jaraso Devi vide sale deeds nos.40/1 dated 25.4.2008 and 687/1 dated 19.12.2008 respectively alongwith all rights appurtenant thereto including tubwell connection electric meter no.HR-11, submersible tubewell/bor. etc. which was in the name of said Smt. Jaraso Devi, vide sale deeds no.1198/1 dated 24.2.2006 executed by Tehal Singh, Baldev Singh, Hardev Singh sons and Smt. Sukhdev Kaur daughter of Labh Singh including electric connection etc. He further argued that since the time of sale deed, the Khasra number in which the tubewell is situated, is in the possession of the complainant’s family. He further argued that the aforesaid electric connection is still in the name of Labh Singh, father of aforesaid Tehal Singh etc. He further argued that father of complainant died on 24.5.2015 and thereafter the complainant alongwith his brother Kushal Pal and Manoj Kumar inherited his properties vide mutation no.532 dated 20.7.2015. He further argued that after the sale deeds, the father of complainant moved an application for transfer of connection in his favour and thereafter the complainant gave an application alongwith copies of sale deeds for transfer of electric connection in the name of complainant and his brothers but the OPs have not done the needful and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other, so the OPs are deficient in service. He produced an authority cited in 2017(4) CCC-484 titled as Southern Power Distribution Company of Telengana Ltd. through its CMD & Ors. Versus Gopal Aggarwal & Ors.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs argued that the complainant is not a consumer of OPs, so the complaint is not maintainable. He further argued that the OPs never refused to give connection to the complainant, rather it is the complainant who  has not completed the required formalities for the installation of his connection. He further argued that the father of the complainant never moved any application for transfer of the electric connection in his name and further as and when the complainant approached the OPs for transfer of said connection then the complainant was asked to submit the copy of sale deed, mutation, sketch where this tubewell installed, NOC of LRs, of previous consumer and the NOC of other co-sharers etc. but complainant has never supplied  the said documents in the office of the OPs and as such no question at all of denying to transfer the connection in question arises.

8.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant has failed to prove that he is consumer of the OPs because the connection in question is not in the name of complainant. Moreover, even the collection in question was not in the name of the previous owner because she had not got transferred the same in her name, so she was also not the consumer of the OPs.

9.             Even otherwise on merits, it is clear from the sale deeds produced on the file that the father of the complainant had purchased the share of the land including the share in the electric connection. The father of the complainant has never purchased the entire connection in question. The complainant alleged that his father had moved an application for the transfer of connection in his name but the complainant has failed to prove the same. As admitted by the OPs, the complainant has approached the OPs regarding transfer of the connection but the OPs asked the complainant for completion of formalities including submission of copies of sale deeds, mutation, sketch where the tubewell installed, NOC of LRs of previous consumer and NOC of other co-sharers etc. The complainant has not produced any document or evidence, vide which it can be proved that the complainant completed all the required formalities. Even the complainant has not mentioned in his pleading that he has completed all the required formalities of the OPs. When the complainant himself has not completed the required formalities, then how it can be said that the OPs are deficient. Hence we found no deficiency on the part of the OPs. The authority produced by the complainant is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we do not find any 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: 11.01.2018

                                                               

                                                                 President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                          Member