Haryana

StateCommission

A/999/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

03 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     999 of 2015

Date of Institution:     23.11.2015

Date of Decision :      03.02.2016

 

1.     The Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Narnaul.

2.     The Sub-Divisional Officer (Rural), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Narnail.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

Surender Kumar s/o Sh. Khushi Ram, Resident of Village and Post Office Sihma, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Harjit Yadav, Advocate assisted by respondent-Surender Kumar.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal, by the Opposite Parties, questions the correctness and legality of the order, dated July 15^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘the District Forum’), in Consumer Complaint No.274 of 2011. By the impugned order, the District Forum, while accepting the complaint filed by Surender Kumar-Complainant/respondent against Executive Engineer and Sub Divisional Officer (Rural), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Limited (‘DHBVNL’)-Opposite Parties, alleging deficiency in service on their part, directed the DHBVNL to release tubewell connection to the respondent, to pay Rs.10,000/- compensation and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses.

2.      The respondent, applied for electric connection of his tubewell vide application dated July 9^th, 2009 (Annexure C-2). He deposited Rs.22,750/- with the DHBVNL. His name was in the seniority list for releasing connection. The DHVBNL issued a letter No.5381 dated July 11^th, 2011 (Annexure C-10) to the respondent whereby he was asked to choose any one option out of the three, mentioned as under:-

1)      The old system of four or more connections per transformer, where the consumer pays Rs.20,000/- and Rs.7,000/- per span;

2)      Three connections per transformer where the consumer pays Rs 30,000/- and Rs 7,000/- per span and

3)      Single connection per transformer where the consumer meets the full cost of the estimate.

 

3.      The respondent opted option No.3 vide reply (Annexure A-5) but instead of depositing the amount required to take connection under the said option, he filed the instant complaint.  

4.      The respondent who is present in person has stated that he is ready to take connection under option No.3 and the same be released to him on seniority basis.

5.      Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate, representing the DHBVNL, has stated that the tubewell connection shall be released on seniority basis provided the respondent complies with the requirements of option No.3.

6.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that DHBVNL shall release the tubewell connection to the respondent within thirty days on depositing the requisite amount as per the option No.3.

7.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.6100/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced: 03.02.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Nawab Singh President

CL