Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/422/2014

Bachan Singh S/o Sugan Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Raghubir Singh

05 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                                Complaint No…..422  of 2014.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 7.10.2014.

                                                                                                Date of decision: 5.6.2015.

 

Bachan Singh son of Sh. Sugan Chand, resident of VPO Damla, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Sub Division No.1, Yamuna Nagar through S.D.O. (OP). 

2.U.H.B.V.N.Ltd. through X.En.  Yamuna Nagar.

3. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                                                                 …Opposite parties.

                        Complaint under section 12 of

                        the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

 

Present: Sh. Raghubir Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.     

              Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate, counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER

 

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that he applied for the release of electric connection for his tubewell in the year 2009 vide application No. 16643-AP and deposited Rs. 1000/- vide receipt No. 84 dated 27.4.2009 towards security. The complainant visited several times to the OP No.1 for issuance of demand notice as he always remained ready to deposit the requisite amount with the OPs as he is in dire need of tubewell connection but the OP No.1 did not give any satisfactory answer to the complainant. The complainant moved an application dated 25.3.2014 to the OP No.1 requesting for demand notice and electricity connection and said application was accepted and complainant was assured that the demand notice will be issued and tubewell connection will be released very soon. The Nigam issued an amended sale circular No. U-28/2014 for revival of application of tube well connection and as per sale circular the complainant moved an application for revival of tubewell connection No. 16643-AP dated 27.4.2009 to the OP No.1 which was accepted and marked at Serial No. 1922 dated 19.8.2014 but till today no action has been taken upon the said application.  In this way OPs have neither issued demand notice nor released the tubewell connection to the complainant as per rules and thus have committed deficiency and negligence in service on their parts and has, thus, prayed for issuing a direction to receive the consent money and other charges if any from the complainant and also to release the tubewell connection to the complainant immediately without any delay and without demanding any illegal amount from the complainant and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement wherein it has been urged that the OPs have issued the sale circular No. U-28/2014 for revival of the application for tubewell connection. The complainant made an application under the said sale circular but has not completed the demanded formalities under the said scheme, so whenever the complainant will complete the required formalities under the said scheme, the case of the complainant will be sent to the higher authority for necessary sanction. So there is no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of OPs and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation or damages as alleged and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his case, counsel for complainant has tendered Affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Annexure C-1 Photo copy of receipt dated 27.4.2009 amounting to Rs. 1000/-, C-2 Photo copy of application dated 25.3.2014 for release of tubewell connection, C-3 Photo copy of application dated 19.8.2014 regarding revival of application No. 16643/AP dated 27.4.2009, C-4 Photo copy of sale circular No. U-28/2014 dated 1.7.2014 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant whereas on the other hand, counsel for the Ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Subhash Pannu, SDO, as Annexure RX and closed evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.                     We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents carefully and minutely placed on file.  Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

                        It is argued by the counsel for the complainant that he has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as security towards tube well connection vide receipt No. 84 dated 27.4.2009 and his application for tubewell connection was registered vide serial No. 16643AP which is still pending with the opposite parties. Further argued that no demand notice has been received by the complainant from the opposite parties till date and he is in dire need of the tube well connection and on visiting, opposite party No.1 did not give any satisfactory reply to the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that when the complainant has not received any response from the opposite parties, after waiting for sufficient time, moved an application Annexure C-2 on 25.3.2014 to the opposite party No.1 in which he has specifically mentioned that he has not received any demand notice. Due to this reason he could not deposit the consent/requisite amount and lastly prayed to allow him to deposit the requisite consent amount, so that connection can be released and further argued that OP No.3 has issued sale circular No.U28/2014 and he is entitled to get the connection of tubewell as per this circular. This act and conduct of the opposite parties constitute a deficiency in service against the complainant and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that demand notice was issued to the complainant but the complainant has not completed the demanded formalities under the scheme, hence his previous application was rejected. However, department of opposite party No.1 have issued the sale circular No. U28/2014 for revival of the applications for tube well connection as the public at large was approaching to the government. The complainant made an application under the said sale circular but again has not completed the demanded formalities under the said scheme and has not deposited consent money and whenever the complainant will complete the required formalities under the said scheme, the case of the complainant will be sent to the Higher Authorities for necessary sanction. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.                     We have considered the contention of the parties, it is admitted fact that complainant deposited Rs. 1,000/- with the opposite party No.1 on account of security amount for release of tubewell connection. It is also admitted fact that complainant wrote a letter dated 25.3.2014 to the opposite party No.1 marked as Annexure C-2 showing his willingness to deposit requisite amount and completing other formalities under revival scheme issued by the opposite parties vide sale circular No. U28/2014 Annexure C-4. It is also admitted fact that complainant Bachan Singh moved an another application Annexure C-3 which was duly received by opposite party No.1 on 19.8.2014, in which complainant has specifically mentioned that he is ready to deposit consent money and complete the formalities under the new scheme vide his application No. 16643AP dated 27.4.2009 and requested for revival of the previous application.

7.                     From the perusal of the reply filed by the opposite parties it shows that opposite parties have never issued any letter for completing the formalities as no copy of such letter has been placed on this file by the opposite parties and even opposite parties have not disclosed the number and date vide which any letter was issued to the complainant for completing the formalities and depositing money. Opposite parties simply denied the averments made in the complaint and no specific particulars regarding the formalities, which was required to be completed has been mentioned even in its reply. The opposite parties have also not disclosed in their reply that they have taken any action on the application which was received on 25.3.2014 as well as on 19.8.2014 vide No. 1922, from the complainant. It shows that both applications are still pending with the opposite parties and opposite parties are lingering the matter without any reasonable cause. From the perusal of Annexure C-4, it is clear that the Opposite parties have issued sale circular No. U-28/2014 dated 1.7.2014 for revival of cancelled application where demand notices have not been complied with and the consent money has not been deposited by the applicant and the concerned S.E. (OP) were directed to accord approval for revival of such cases. 

                        In view of the facts narrated above, we are of the confirmed view that the opposite parties neither released the tube well connection of the complainant nor intimated to him whether his application has been allowed or not for revival of tubewell connection as per sale circular No. U-28/2014 dated 1.7.2014. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite parties is amounts to deficiency in service and thus the complaint of complainant deserve acceptance.

                        Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to comply with the following directions within 60 days from the communication of this order:-

1. To release the tubewell connection of complainant for which he has applied after charging consent money and cost of spans etc. if any, as per new scheme, and further directed to intimate in writing all the formalities which are required for releasing tubewell connection within a period of 15 days and the complainant is also directed to complete the requisite formalities within next 15 days.  
2. To pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and also Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses.

                        The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. The complaint is decided accordingly in the above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 5.6.2015.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                MEMBER.