Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/393/2014

Balak Ram S/o Prabhu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Panjeta

30 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                                Complaint No…..393  of 2014.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 11.9.2014.

                                                                                                Date of decision: 30.6.2015.

 

Balak Ram son of Shri Prabhu Ram, resident of Village Munda Khera, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                                   …Complainant.

                                               Versus

 

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through S.D.O. (OP), Sub Division Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.  

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

3. The Chairman/Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

4. U.H.B.V.N.L. Construction Department, near Sant Nischal Singh Public School, Chopra Garden, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, through its S.D.O.

 

                                                                                                                                                     …Opposite parties.

                         

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

 

Present: Sh. Rajesh Panjetha, Advocate, counsel for complainant.     

              Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 to 3.

              Sh. Karnail Singh, Advocate, counsel for OP No.4.

 

ORDER

 

 1.                     Complainant Balak Ram has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to release the tubewell connection to the complainant immediately and further to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and economic loss and further to pay Rs. 7700/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant has applied for tubewell connection for Agriculture land with the OPs and deposited security amount as per rules. He has further stated that OPs sent a demand notice for depositing amount of transformer and span charges etc. and according to the demand notice the complainant deposited transformer, span as well as meter and cable charges on 8.6.2010 vide receipt No. 301 and 302 dated 8.6.2010. The complainant has further stated that after completing all the formalities and depositing money he has visited several times to the OP No.1 for releasing the tubewell connection but the OP No.1 did not give any satisfactory answer to the complainant. However, later on, on asking of the OPs the complainant got installed tubewell bore, constructed room and hodi and spent a huge amount thereon but again OPs have not released the tubewell connection. It has been further stated that 4 years have been passed from the date of depositing of the entire amount but the OPs have not released the tubewell connection till date. It is further stated that OPs have been influenced by some unknown persons. Lastly he has stated that in the month of May 2014 some persons from the office of Thekedar (Contractor) came at the spot for erecting the tubewell connection but due to some dispute with private person arose at the spot, tubewell connection could not be installed. After that the complainant moved an application dated 23.5.2014 to the OP No.1 for releasing the tubewell connection and on this application the OP No.1 issued an application bearing memo No. 1510 dated 6.6.2014 to the SHO,  P.S. Sadar Jagadhri for police help and this application was received by the police station on 9.6.2014. The official of the police return the said application to the SDO concerned with the remarks that SDO, UHBVNL, Chhachhrauli will inform the date and time when they will visit the spot for erecting the tubewell connection and then he will provide police help.  Complainant has further stated that after that OPs neither informed to the police nor to the complainant that when they will visit the spot for erecting the tubewell connection and till date neither any step has been taken by the OPs nor the connection has been released by the OPs till date. Thus, the OPs have committed deficiency and negligence in service and the complainant has suffered lot of mental agony, harassment as well as financial loss and lastly prayed for issuing directions to release the tubewell connection of the complainant immediately without any delay and without any demanding illegal amount from the complainant and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OPs No.1 to 3 filed their written statement jointly wherein it has been mentioned that some employees of the Nigam went to the spot for erecting an electricity line, but some dispute arose at the spot and the employees of the Nigam were not allowed to erect the electricity line by some villagers of the complainant as those villagers were having some inimical and strained relations with the complainant, regarding this, the OPs moved an application to the SHO, Police Station Sadar Jagadhri for providing police help for erecting the electricity line and for taking action against one Rajesh and Mohinder resident of village Munda Khera, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar but the police has neither taken any action against the aforesaid persons nor has provided police help to the OPs for erecting the electricity line. So as and when police help will be provided to the OPs, the OPs will release the tubewell connection of the complainant. So, there is no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of OPs and complainant is not entitled for any compensation or damages as alleged and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     OP No.4 has also filed his written statement separately taking some preliminary objections and on merit it is submitted that the OP No.4 being construction Department doing the work of construction only under the OP No.1 and have no concern whatsoever with the deficiency in service as there is no relationship of consumer and supplier between the complainant and OP No.4 and lastly prayed that complaint qua OP No.4 deserves dismissal.

 5.                    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 8.6.2010, C-2 Photo copy of application dated 23.5.2014 and Annexure C-3 Photo copy of application to the SHO vide memo No.1510 dated 6.6.2014 by the SDO Chhachhrauli and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Ashish Chopra, SDO as Annexure RX and documents such as Annexure R-1 Photo copy of letter memo No.1510 dated 6.6.2014 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 to 3.  

7.                     Counsel for the OP No.4 closed his evidence without tendering any documents.

8.                     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 their reply and prayed for its dismissal.

9.                     It is argued by the counsel for the complainant that he has deposited an amount of Rs. 2750/- and Rs. 14000/- vide receipt No.301 and 302 dated 8.6.2010 respectively and his application for tubewell connection was registered vide serial No. 4413AP which is still pending with the opposite parties. It has been further alleged that complainant has visited so many times to the OPs No.1 to 4 for releasing the tubewell connection but the OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant.

 10.                  From the perusal of the reply filed by the OPs and arguments advanced by both the parties it shows that there is no dispute that the complainant has applied for tubewell connection and completed all the formalities. From the perusal of Annexure R-1 it is clear that OPs are ready to release the tubewell connection of the complainant but due to some hindrance by the private persons it could not be installed at the spot. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the report of Sh. Mahender Singh ASI dated 9.6.2014 made on application moved to the SHO, Police Station Sadar Jagadhri in which it has been specifically mentioned by Mahender Singh ASI that OP No.1 will inform the date and time when the OPs will go for erecting the tubewell connection at the spot and they will provide police help.  Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the OP No.1 neither informed the police regarding date and time of visit the spot for erecting the tubewell connection nor installs the tubewell connection till date since that date i.e. 9.6.2014. It has been further stated that no evidence has been filed by the OPs in which they pursue the matter with the police after the application dated 6.6.2014 and from that date the complainant is running from pillar to post but all in vain. Thus, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.                   We have gone through the file and documents placed on the file by the OPs and we are of the considered view that opposite parties neither took any steps to release the connection of the complainant nor any FIR has been lodged against any culprits who are making hindrance in the official duty for erecting the tubewell connection of the complainant and prolonging the matter due to the reason best known to them whereas the case of the complainant is fully proved as the complainant has completed all the formalities and sufficient time near about 4 ½ years have already been elapsed. Moreover, as per the contention of OPs, the Competent Authority of OPs has passed the order for erecting the tubewell connection of the complainant but they failed to do so. As such the act and conduct of the OPs No.1 to 3 is amounts to deficiency in service and thus the complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance qua OPs No.1 to 3.

 12.                  Resultantly we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.1 to 3 to release the tubewell connection of the complainant within 30 days from the communication of this order failing which complainant will be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. The OPs No.1 to 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses. 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: 30.6.2015.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                 MEMBER