Haryana

Panchkula

CC/146/2021

JOGINDER KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE DIRECTOR ,UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM. - Opp.Party(s)

CHANDERHAS YADAV

16 Nov 2021

ORDER

Before the District Consumer, Dispute Redressal, commission, Panchkula.

Consumer Complaint No.	:	146 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	22.02.2021
Date of Decision	:	16.11.2021

 

Joginder Kumar S/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Dass Sharma permanent resident of Village and Post Office Hangola, Tehsil Raipur Rani, District Panchkula, (Haryana).                                                                                                                                                                              …….Complainant

                                                      Versus

1.      The Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Haryana, Vidut Sadan, Panchkula.  

2.      The Sub Divisional Officer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Barwala, Panchkula.

3.      The Divisional Officer/XEN Operation, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula, Haryana, Flat No.517 and 518, Power Colony, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.  

….. Opposite Parties

Complaint under SecTION 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Before:                Sh.Satpal, President.  

                           Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

 

                          

For the Parties:    Sh. Chanderhas Yadav, counsel for the complainant.

                           Sh. Y.P Rana, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order   

(SATPAL, president)

 1.              The complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that in December 2013, the complainant had applied for an electricity connection, for agriculture purposes. In pursuance of above said application, the Sub Divisional Officer, UHBVN, Barwala, Panchkula had issued demand notice No.6815/CC dated 01.08.2016 (OP No.2) (S/Circle U-16-2016) and according to this demand notice, the complainant had deposited the required amount of Rs.1,00,484/-, in cash (vide receipt No.203, dated 16.09.2016), in the office of SDO, UHBVNL, Barwala, Panchkula and Rs.590/- in State Bank of Patiala, Grain Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the OP No.2 vide memo dated 21.03.2017, asking the complainant to complete the formalities. The complainant had duly replied in which he had categorically stated that there is some dispute going on regarding land levelling work of the above stated land. Therefore, the complainant had requested to keep the electricity connection on hold. Then again a memo no.392 dated 14.06.2017 was issued by the OP to complete the formalities, so connection can be installed. In pursuance of the memo 392, dated 14.06.2017 issued by the OP in this response, the complainant had sent a legal notice on 16.08.2017 to the OP No.2 to registered post. In the year 2015 & 2017, the complainant had engaged two different dealers for the land levelling work and also paid them amount of Rs.13 lacs and Rs.7.50 lacs respectively. The said dealers played fraud with the complainant. Due to the non completion of land levelling work at site of the complainant by two dealers in the year 2015 and 2017, he suffered loss for ten seasonal crops for the period from 2015 to 2020 which is assessed as Rs.40 lacs. Thereafter, the complainant had carried out the land levelling work on the land in question by spending an amount of Rs.29 lacs thereafter, the complainant requested the Ops to release the electricity connection of the complainant bearing connection no.46026/AP/ 31.12.2013.The complainant visited the office of OP No.2 several times, but the OP No.2 did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant.  Therefore, due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notice OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer; no cause of action; not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts.

                  On merits, it is stated that the complainant had applied for tube well connection for his fields vide his application no.46026/AP dated 31.12.2013 in the office of the OP No2. Thereafter, as per the provisions and procedure the office of the Ops had issued an information regarding acceptance of the application and demand  notice vide no.6815/CC dated 01.08.2016 by the office of OP No.2 and by virtue of the said demand notice, the department had sight sand further directed the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,484/- as cost of estimate and further supply the original ISI marking Bill motor etc. and subsequently, the complainant had deposited the said amount as well as documents with the office of OP No.2 vide dated 16.09.2016. Thereafter, the office of Ops have issued service connection order vide book No.121, Serial No.25, dated 21.09.2016 for the complainant. The said order was duly received by the complainant but he failed to visit the office of the Ops. Thereafter, as per the procedure and rules of the Nigam, the officials of the Ops including JE Rajat Gupta, etc. visited the fields of the complainant on 20.11.2016, 28.12.2016 and 14.02.2017 with entire structure/material in order to install the connection, but the complainant had refused the same. Thereafter, the OP No.2 had issued a letter memo no.03 dated 21.03.2017 to him with the direction to take/install the tube well electricity connection within a period of 15 days otherwise the application for issuance of tube well electricity connection will be cancelled as the applicants, who have applied after the application of the complainant and were junior are facing difficulties and the connections could not be issued to the next applicants as per the rules of the Nigam as the Nigam has to maintain the seniority. Thereafter, in reply the above said letter dated 21.03.2017, the complainant vide his reply dated 24.04.2017 seek some more time to take the tube well electricity connection. The application of the complainant was duly heard and as there is no instructions/rules of the Nigam to postpone the release of connection of such applicants, who have accepted and completed all the formalities of demand notice, hence the office of OP no.2 vide its letter memo No.392 dated 14.06.2017 informed the complainant that his case is already over delay and Nigam has no such rule to entertain his application dated 24.04.2017 and hence the tube well connection of the complainant has been cancelled.  So, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.               Replication to the written statement of the OPs was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OPs.

4.               The complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-10 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A along with documents Annexure R-1 to R-6 closed the evidence.

5.               We have heard learned counsels for the complainant as well as OPs and have gone through the entire record available on record including written arguments has been filed by the learned counsel for the complainant minutely and carefully.

6.               Admittedly, an application bearing No.46026/AP dated 31.12.2013 was submitted by the complainant with the OPs seeking electric connection for his tube-well under the Agriculture Category and the OPs acting on the said application issued the demand notice bearing No.65/5/CC dated 01.08.2016 asking the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,484/- and Rs.590/- and to complete certain other formalities. Evidently, the complainant deposited the aforesaid sum of Rs.100484/- as per Annexure C-2 and Rs.590/- as per Annexure C-3. The completion of other formalities by the complainant as asked by the OPs vide demand notice Annexure C-1 is also not disputed. In fact, the OP issued the service connection (Annexure R-5) order on 21.09.2016 asking its J.E Sh. Rajat Gupta to carry out the necessary work pertaining to the release of electric connection. Since the complainant was not ready to get the electric connection installed in his field on account of uneven land, he was issued the show cause notice vide letter dated 21.3.2017 (Annexure R-4) to get the work completed from his contractor pertaining to the levelling of agriculture land within a period of 15 days, failing which his application seeking electric connection was liable to  be cancelled. In response to said show cause notice (Annexure R-5), the complainant vide his application dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure R-3), explaining his inability to get the work completed pertaining to land levelling, requested the OPs to keep his application pending till 31.12.2017 or the decision of the Consumer Complaint No.381 of 2016, by the State Consumer Commission, Haryana. However, the OP vide letter/Memo No.392, dated 14.06.2017 (Annexure R-2) cancelled the said application of the complainant vide which electric connection for his tube-well in the Agriculture category was applied. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OP through his counsel on 16.08.2017 (Annexure C-7) assailing the legality and validity of the cancellation order issued vide letter/Memo No.392, dated 14.06.2017.  Now, the question that falls for consideration, before the Commission is, whether the cancellation order issued vide letter/Memo No.392, dated 14.06.2017 (Annexure R-2) is legal, valid and justifiable.

7.               Before issuing the impugned cancellation order vide letter/Memo No.392, dated 14.06.2017 (Annexure R-2), the show cause notice dated 21.03.2017 (Annexure R-4) was issued by the OPs informing the complainant that his application bearing No.65/5/cc/dated 01.08.2016 seeking electric connection would be cancelled because the execution of work pertaining to release of electric connection to the other applicants, who were junior to the complainant in seniority list, was being obstructed. The complainant represented his case vide letter dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure R-3) explaining that a consumer dispute between him and the contractor is pending before State Consumer Commission and thus, requested for the extension of time for the release of tube well connection till 31.12.2017 or the decision of the complaint by the State Consumer Commission in CC No.381 of 2016. It is pertinent to mention here that OPs were duly apprised by the complainant that the land levelling work, where the tube well connection was to be released, had not been completed by the contractor but the OPs cancelled the application seeking electric connection for the tube well vide letter/Memo No.392, dated 14.06.2017 (Annexure R-2) on the ground that there is no rule to entertain such application dated 24.04.2017.    

8.               Having perused the entire record available on the file including the show cause notice as well as impugned cancellation order, it is found that the cancellation order suffers from several legal infirmities. First of all, the OPs have not shown as to how, the work pertaining to the release of tube well connection to other applicants, who were junior to the complainant, was going to be hampered or obstructed by keeping the application to the complainant on hold or pending. Moreover, no technical report substantiating and corroborating the contentions of Ops have been made available on record. Secondly, the OP has not shown any rule or circular whereby it was prohibited to keep electric connection application of the complainant on hold or pending till 31.12.2017 or the decision of his consumer complaint No.381 of 2016 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana. Furthermore, the OPs have neither shown any rule or law authorising them to cancel the application of the complainant. We do not come across any such law or rules or circular issued by the OPs, which authorises them to cancel the application seeking electric connection.   

9.               In the light of above discussion, we conclude that there has been deficiency on the part of the OPs while cancelling the application of the complainant seeking electric connection and thus, the complainant is entitled to relief.  

10.             As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

                           (i)     The Ops are directed to release the electric   connection  applied vide application no.46026/AP/                                  31.12.2013 by the complainant for tubewell under   Agricultural category.

 

                           (ii)     The OPs are also directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant                                  on account of mental agony and  physical  harassment  as  well as litigations charges

 

11.             The OPs shall comply with the order within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 16.11.2021

 

               (Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini)                 (Satpal)

                      Member                                 President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                        

                                          Satpal                                                                                         

                                               President