Baldev Singh S/o Karnail Singh filed a consumer case on 17 Mar 2016 against UHBVN Ltd. in the Yamunanagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/1250/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 18 Apr 2016.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR
Complaint No..1250 of 2012
Date of institution: 04.12.2012
Date of decision: 17.03.2016
Baldev Singh aged about 45 years son of Sh. Karnail Singh, resident of village Choli Rampur, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.
…Complainant.
Versus
Before: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT
SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Amit Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh. D.S.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for OPs.
ORDER
1 Complainant Baldev Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 7000/- which was deposited on account of span charges alongwith interest and litigation expenses.
2. Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant applied for tubewell connection and had deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 23.6.2010 and thereafter the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 14000/- on 20.7.2010 as span charges for two poles but inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant, the OPs did not release the tubewell connection and finding no other alternative the complainant filed a consumer complaint No. 35 of 2012 on 9.1.2012 which was decided by this Forum on 11.4.2012 in favour of complainant and the OPs were directed to release the tubewell connection of the complainant.
3. In compliance of Forum’s order, the OPs released the tubewell connection of the complainant and at the time of releasing the tubewell connection only one span was used by the OPs whereas the OPs have charged Rs. 14000/- for two span i.e. Rs. 7000/- for each span. As such the complainant is entitled to get the refund of Rs. 7000/- as cost of one span. The complainant visited so many times to refund the amount but the OPs continued putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, this complaint.
4. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement admitting therein that the OPs are ready to make the payment of one span after got fulfilling all the required formalities from the complainant. Rest contents of the complaint were denied for want of knowledge. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. As the complainant failed to lead any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order on 24.4.2015. However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant filed his affidavit and document such as Photo copy of order dated 11.4.2012 passed in CC No.35 of 2012 titled as Baldev Singh vs. UHBVNL with the complaint in support of his complaint.
6. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs closed the evidence without tendering any documents.
7. 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. As the OPs have admitted that only one span has been installed at the spot at the time of releasing the tubewell connection of the complainant and the OPs are ready to refund the cost of one span of Rs. 7000/- to the complainant subject to completing the formalities.
8. However, learned counsel for the complainant argued that the OPs have not refunded the amount despite so many requests and he was forced to file the present complaint. So, in this way the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs. 7000/- as span charges alongwith interest from the date of deposit and further to litigation expenses.
9. After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that the OPs have admitted in their written statement that only one span has been installed and the OPs are ready to refund the cost of one span. Hence, we have no option except to allow the complaint of complainant.
10. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to refund the cost of one span i.e. Rs. 7000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 20.7.2010 till its realization and further to pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court. 17.03.2016.
(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)
PRESIDENT
(S.C.SHARMA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.