Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/253/2015

Karam Chand S/o Karnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.P.Singh

19 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 253 of 2015.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 23.07.2015   

                                                                                          Date of decision: 19.01.2017

 

Karam Chand aged about 52 years, son of Shri Karnail Singh, resident of village Kalawar, Tehsil Mustfabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

…Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Limited, through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.
2. The SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division, UHBVN, Sub Division Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Balbir Singh son of Karnail Singh, resident of village Kalawar, Sub Tehsil Mustfabad, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                    ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Raj Pal Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. RK Kamboj, Advocate for OPs No.1 and 2.

                        Sh. Jiya Lal, Advocate for OP no.3.

ORDER

 

1                       The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant applied for the release of electric connection for his tubewell vide application bearing No. 51220/AP dated 14.12.2009. Thereafter, the OP Nigam issued demand notice dated 16.08.2011, upon which the complainant deposited the security and certain amount as demanded by the OPs Nigam. The complainant also gave his consent vide letter    dated 30.08.2011 to obtain electric connection under circular No.11/2011. The complainant deposited the revised security as per fresh circular on 25.02.2015 and after that requested so many times to release his tube well connection. However, on 23.06.2015 the OP No.2 issued a letter to the complainant informing him that connection of his tube well cannot be released as the brother of the complainant i.e. OP N o.3 has moved written objection to the release of connection. The complainant was asked to explain his position in person within 15 days and accordingly complainant visited to the office of OP No.2 and explained the entire matter. But the OP No.2 refused to release the connection until NOC was given by his brother. The aforesaid action on the part of the OPs refusing the release of electric connection to him in spite of deposit of huge money is totally wrong and illegal and against the rules which constitutes the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for directing the OPs to immediately release the tube well connection and pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement jointly besides the preliminary objections stated on merit that, complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and true facts are that complainant had applied for tube well connection vide application No.51220 dated 14.12.2009 but due to non compliance of demand notice, the application of the complainant was rejected by the Nigam. But lateron the application of the complainant was revived again and during the process of the said application, one Shri Balbir Singh son of Shri Karnail Singh resident of  village Kalawar, District Yamuna Nagar has moved an application for not releasing the connection in the name of the complainant at the premises, which is joint property of the co-sharers, as the same has not been partitioned in between them and it has been stated by the said Balbir Singh that the complainant has submitted his NOC by forging his signature over the same, however, he has not signed any NOC etc. On which, the department has served a letter No.80 dated 11.06.2015 to applicant Karam Chand and requested them to submit NOC duly signed by all the co sharer. As per sale circular, rules, regulations and instructions of the Nigam, the NOC is very much necessary for releasing the connection. But till today, the requirements /formalities have not been completed by the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly requested for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No.1 and 2.

4.                     OP No.3 also appeared and filed his written statement taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi; as the land for which the complainant has applied for connection is, joint land among the complainant Karam Chand and the OP No.3 and other brothers namely Prem Chand, Balwant Singh, Raghubir Singh as till today no partition of the above said land taken place and on merit it has been submitted that complainant has absolutely no right to apply for tubewell connection for the land which is still joint. It has been further mentioned that it came to the light of the OP No.3 that complainant forged signature of the OP No.3 on NOC for which an application dated 13.07.2015 for not releasing the tubewell connection to the complainant, was moved by the OP No.3 to the OP No.1 and 2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                     In support of the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of demand notice bearing No.804, dated 09.09.2015  as Annexure C-1, application dated 30.08.2011 moved to the SDO Sadhaura as Annexure C2, photocopy of letter dated 14.12.2009 as Annexure C-3, demand notice dated 14.12.2009 as Annexure C-4, copy of receipt bearing 085977 depositing Rs.30,000/- dated 28.02.2015 as Annexure C-5 and photocopy of letter issued by SDO as annexure C-6 and closed the evidence.

6.                     On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of  Shri Pardeep Chaudhary, SDO (OP) Sub Division UHBVNL as Annexure RW/A, application of Balbir Singh dated 09.06.2015 as Annexure R-1, letter dated 28.06.2015 issued by SDO UHBVN Sadhaura as Annexure R-2, Another letter issued by SDO UHBVNL dated 11.06.2015 as Annexure R-3, photocopy of reply issued by SDO UHBVN as Annexure R-4, photocopy of legal notice as Annexure R-5, photocopy of postal receipt as Annexure R-6, photocopy of jamabandi for the year 2013-14 as Annexure R-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1 and 2.

7.                     Learned counsel for the OP No.3 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Balbir Singh as Annexure R3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

8.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

9.                     The only version of the OPs Nigam is that one Sh. Balbir Singh son of Sh. Karnail Singh, who is brother of the complainant has moved an application for not releasing the tubewell connection in the name of complainant at the agriculture land/premises which is joint property being co-sharers and it has been further submitted that said Balbir Singh has not signed any NOC which has been submitted by the complainant. Upon which, OPs Nigam has served a letter No. 191 dated 28.06.2015 (Annexure R-2) to the complainant to clarify the facts but till today the complainant has not completed the formalities. Hence, the tubewell connection of the complainant was not released by the OPs Nigam. Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the application dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure R-1) submitted by said Balbir Singh and letter issued by the OPs Nigam on dated 11.06.2015 and 28.06.2015 Annexure R-2 and R-3 and further legal notices and reply of the Nigam Annexure R-4 and R-5 and requested for dismissal of the complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops Nigam.

10.                   Learned counsel for the OP No.3 argued that the complainant as well as the OP No.3 have joint land as till today no partition has been occurred between the parties and requested for dismissal of the complaint.

11.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that a false and manipulated application has been moved by OP No.3 whereas complainant is owner in possession of a separate land and cultivating the same although no partition has been taken place between the parties, however, it cannot be said that complainant has no possession on the particular land. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that a huge amount had already been deposited by the complainant which is still lying with the Ops Nigam. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the demand notice bearing No. 804 dated 09.09.2015 (Annexure C-1) and argued that this demand notice has been issued by the OPs Nigam even after that application dated 09.06.2015 issued by the said Balbir Singh and clarification letters bearing No. 80 dated 11,06.2015 (Annexure R-3) and another letter bearing No. 191 dated 28.06.2015 (Annexure R-2) issued by the Ops Nigam. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the other various documents including receipt of Rs. 30,000/- Annexure C-5, previous demand notice dated 14.12.2009 Annexure C-4, Letter dated 14.12.2009 issued by SDO, UHBVNL Annexure C-3 and argued that OPs have knowingly and illegally withheld the tubewell connection of the complainant and prayed for acceptance of complaint. 

12.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as it is admitted case of the OPs Nigam that complainant had already completed all the formalities and deposited requisite amount with the OPs Nigam. From the perusal of the demand notice bearing No. 804 dated 09.09.2015 Annexure C-1, it is duly evident that this demand notice has been issued by the OPs Nigam after receiving the application/complaint dated 09.06.2015 Annexure R-1 made by Balbir Singh brother of the complainant and further clarification letters bearing No. 80 dated 11.06.2015 Annexure R-3 and another letter bearing No. 191 dated 28.06.2015 Annexures R-2. Meaning thereby that the Ops Nigam issued this demand notice after clarifying all the things from the complainant otherwise there was no reason to issue demand notice to deposit the requisite charges. Moreover, from the perusal of receipt Annexure C-5, it is clearly evident that complainant had deposited consent money of Rs. 30,000/- on 14.12.2009 vide receipt No. 085977 dated 14.12.2009 and further it is not the case of the OPs Nigam that complainant has not completed the formalities and is not entitled to get the tubewell connection as per seniority list. As the only version of the OPs Nigam is that the tubewell connection of the complainant has not been released due to the complaint/application of one Sh. Balbir Singh brother of the complainant but the Ops has not placed on file any such circular or any report from the revenue authority i.e. Patwari or Tehsildar vide which to prove that the complainant was not having any separate possession of the land in question where the tubewell connection is to be installed. When the huge amount of the complainant is lying with the Ops Nigam since the year 2009 and considerable time of near about 6-7 years have already been elapsed, so, there is no reason not to grant the relief to the complainant.

13.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we direct the OPs Nigam to release the tubewell connection of the complainant subject to deposit of necessary charges, if any, pending against him. Order be complied within a period of 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 the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.19.01.2017.

 

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

                                                                                    D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNANAGAR

                        (S.C.SHARMA)

                        MEMBER                                                        

.