Haryana

StateCommission

A/939/2016

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURAT SINGH YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

02 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      939 of 2016

Date of Institution:     07.10.2016

Date of Decision :      02.11.2016

 

1.      SDO, Sub Urban, Singhana, Narnaul.

2.      Chief Engineer, DHBVNL, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana.

3.      Superintending Engineer, DHBVNL, Singhana Road, Narnaul.

4.      Executive Engineer, DHBVNL, Singhana Road, Narnaul.

          Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Surat Singh Yadav son of Sh. Surajbhan Yadav, resident of C.I.A, Road (Kanwi-Wali-Kua), Near Jal Mahal, Near Hardiya Transformer, Narnaul.

Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.   

                                                                            

Present:     Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Sub Divisional Officer, Narnaul and others-opposite parties (for short, ‘DHBVNL’) are in appeal against the order dated August 10^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Surat Singh Yadav-complainant was allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “5.     Therefore, keeping in view the discussions made above, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed with costs and the opposite parties are directed:-

1. To release the tubewell electric connection to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
4. The complainant is directed to deposit Rs.1765/- (as described in demand notice No.5881 dated September 09^th, 2011 Annexure R-3) with the opposite parties.”  

 

2.      The complainant applied for tubewell connection on December 8^th, 2009. He deposited the requisite fee of Rs.22,500/-.  He made repeated requests to the DHBVNL to release the tubewell connection but it was not released. 

3.      In appeal, before this Commission, Shri B.D. Bhatia, learned counsel for the DHBVNL has urged that the electricity connection was not released because a demand notice was issued to the complainant on September 09^th, 2011 to deposit Rs.1765/- as supervision charges, which he did not. 

4.      The complainant has categorically stated that he did not receive the demand notice.  When he deposited Rs.22,500/-, there could be no problem for him in depositing Rs.1765/-.  It shows that he never received the notice.  Thus, the order under challenge requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.12,750/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

Announced 02.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Nawab Singh) President

(UK)