Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/126/2015

Nirmala Devi W/o Raj Mangal Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Aggarwal

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.  126 of 2015.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 9.4.2015.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 28.8.2015

 

Smt. Nirmala Devi wife of late Raj Mangal Mishra, resident of Municipal Quarter, Nehru Park, Yamuna Nagar.       

 

                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                                           Versus

1. U.H.B.V.N.L. Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Managing Director.
2. U.H.B.V.N.L. Sub Division, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar through its Assistant Executive Engineer.

 

                                                                                                                        …opposite parties. 

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Anil Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. R.P.Kaushik, Advocate, counsel for OPs.     

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Smt. Nirmala Devi has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that necessary directions be issued to the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) to release the electricity connection in the residential quarter/ premises allotted to her and further be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment, agony caused to the complainant and her family at the hands of OPs.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that previously her  husband namely Raj Mangal was employed as ‘Head Maali’ in the Municipal Corporation, who expired on 10.10.1992 and after the death of her husband she was appointed as Maali on 9.2.1993 in compliance of order bearing No. 311/LFA dated 5.2.1993. The quarter in question was also re-allotted in the name of complainant for residential purpose vide order dated 6.4.1993 and since then the complainant is residing in the aforesaid residential house. The complainant applied for an electricity connection and completed all the required formalities for issuance of electricity connection with the OP No.2 and deposited an amount of Rs. 2140/- vide receipt No.221 Book No.084878 dated 7.4.2015 in pursuance of application No. 47231DS. Hence, there exists a relationship of consumer and supplier between the complainant and opposite parties.  The complainant is having two daughters and there is no male member in her family. The electricity in the house is the civic amenity, which is also necessary and there is no possibility of existence without electricity in the house but OPs are not releasing the electricity connection in the allotted residential house of the complainant. In this way, the OPs are deficient and negligent in providing proper services to the complainant and are indulging in unfair trade restrictive practices.  Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complaint not maintainable, no relationship of consumer and service provider, complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and on merit it has been mentioned that the complainant is employee of Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar and the premises in question has been allotted to her after the death of her husband.  The complainant applied for the electricity connection in the Ist week of April 2015 and deposited an amount of Rs. 2140/- as security and other charges. As the Municipal Corporation is owner of premises/quarter in question situated at Nehru Park and the complainant sought electricity connection, so, the opposite parties sought “no objection certificate” from the Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar. The Secretary, Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar-Jagadhri vide its letter dated 21.4.2015 informed that notice for vacation of quarter has been given to Smt. Nirmala Mishra, so, “you are requested not to release the connection in Nehru Park”   The complainant has concealed this fact from the Hon’ble Forum, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that electricity connection could not be released without seeking No Objection of employer and owner of the premises, so, in this way, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant’s counsel has tendered affidavit of Smt. Nirmla Devi as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of letter dated 25.3.2015 regarding demanding of Information under RTI regarding appointment of Nirmla Devi as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of security receipt No. 221 dated 7.4.2015 amounting to Rs. 2140/- as C-2, Photo copy of email regarding guidelines for new electricity connection as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of guidelines for new electricity connection as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of receipt No. 259 dated 30.4.2010 amounting to Rs. 1460/- issued in the name of Nirmla Devi as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of proforma for payment made with application as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of letter dated 24.4.2007  written to Executive Officer by Smt. Nirmla Devi for releasing of electricity connection as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of complaint under section 354, 354-B, 294, 452, 506 IPC, P.S.City Yamuna Nagar titled as Ms. Nirmala Mishra vs. Sandeep Bedi @ Micky as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of statement of Ms. Alka Mishra dated 28.11.2014 as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of letter dated 21.4.2015 written by Secretary Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar  to S.D.O. UHBVNL, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar for not releasing the electricity connection to Smt. Nirmala Devi as Annexure C-10, Photo copy of letter dated 13.4.2015  regarding NOC written by SDO, UHBVNL, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar to Executive Officer, Nagar Nigam, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure C-11,  Photo copy of letter dated 9.4.2015 written by SDO, UHBVNL, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar to Executive Officer, Nagar Nigam, Yamuna Nagar regarding No Objection Certificate as Annexure C-12, Photo copies of letter dated 18,4,2013, 21.5.2012 & 6.4.2012 for vacation of premises as Annexure C-13 to C-15 and also recorded the statement of Shri Ravi Charan UDC as CW1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.   

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered an affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, SDO (Operation) Model Town, UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure RW/.A and documents such as Photo copy of letter dated 24.4.2007 written to Executive Officer by Smt. Nirmla Devi for releasing of electricity connection as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of letter dated 13.4.2015  regarding NOC written by SDO, UHBVNL, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar to Executive Officer, Nagar Nigam, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure R-2,  Photo copy of letter dated 9.4.2015 written by SDO, UHBVNL, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar to Executive Officer, Nagar Nigam, Yamuna Nagar regarding No Objection Certificate as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of letter dated 21.4.2015 written by Secretary Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar to S.D.O. UHBVNL, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar for not releasing the electricity connection to Smt. Nirmala Devi as Annexure R-4, Again Photo copy of letter dated 13.4.2015  regarding NOC written by SDO, UHBVNL, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar to Executive Officer, Nagar Nigam, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure R-5, Again Photo copy of letter dated 9.4.2015 written by SDO, UHBVNL, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar to Executive Officer, Nagar Nigam, Yamuna Nagar regarding No Objection Certificate as Annexure R-6, Photo copies of letter dated 18,4,2013, 21.5.2012 & 6.4.2012 for vacation of premises as Annexure R-7 to R-9, Photo copy of dispatch register of Municipal Corporation   as Annexure R-10 and certificate issued by Sangita Singhal, Municipal Councilor against Nirmala Devi as Annexure R-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs. 

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. 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.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that the OPs cannot deny to release the electricity connection when they have accepted an amount of Rs. 2140/- from the complainant against the electricity connection. It has been further argued that premises/quarter in question has been duly allotted to the complainant after the death of her husband which is evident from the office noting of Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar-Jagadhri marked as Annexure C-7. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the Ops failed to file any documentary evidence regarding arrear amount of Rs. 38362/- as stated in the oral statement by Sh. Ravi Chand, UDC, UHBVNL, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar as CW1 and oral statement of witness is not sufficient to prove that complainant is defaulter of OPs. The OPs have not taken any defence regarding arrears in their written statement. Further argued that when the complainant is posted as Maali in Municipal Corporation and premises/quarter in question has been allotted to her by them then there was no need to obtain NOC from the Municipal Corporation for releasing of electricity connection. Lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted.

8.                     On the hand, counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 2140/- on 7./4.2015 and the present complaint has been filed only after 2 days i.e. on 9.4.2015 whereas NOC has been sought from Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar vide letter No. 1980 dated 9.4.2015 and 13.4.2015 Annexure R-6 & R-5 respectively and its reply received on 21.4.2015 vide memo No. 2780 Annexure R-4. It means that the complaint of the complainant is pre mature and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs on 9.4.2015 i.e. at the time of filing of the complaint. Learned counsel for the OPs further draw our attention towards statement of CW1 Ravi Chand, UDC, UHBVNL, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar wherein it has been mentioned that an amount of Rs. 38362/- is outstanding against the old electricity connection bearing No. YT-25/2311 and this fact has been specifically mentioned in the affidavit filed as Annexure RW/A. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that as the Municipal Corporation has not issued NOC for releasing of the electricity connection, hence the OPs could not release electricity connection in the premises/quarter allotted to the complainant and referred letter Ex. R-4 issued by the Municipal Corporation to the OPs in which it has been specifically mentioned that eviction notice had been issued to Smt. Nirmla Devi. Hence, it would not be in the fitness of things to release electricity connection in favour of the complainant and lastly prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9.              It is admitted case of the parties that Nirmala Devi’s husband was employee as Maali of Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar and was allotted the house/quarter in question. There is no dispute between the parties on the point that after the death of Raj Mangal husband, Smt. Nirmala Devi was appointed as Maali in the office of Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar and the house/quarter in question was re-allotted to her on 6.4.1993 Annexure C-1. It is also admitted case of the parties that Smt. Nirmala Devi applied for electricity Connection to the Ops and deposited an amount of Rs2140/- vide receipt no.221 dated 07-04-2015 Annexure C-2. As per Guidelines for New Electricity Connection Annexure C-3, the procedure for deposit of amount for release of electricity connection is like this :

Documents required for new connection.

You will be required to submit some documents alongwith the form.

1. Ownership sale agreement.
2. Election ID
3. Ration card
4. Passport size photographs
5. Possession/Allotment Letter (Government premises)
6. Land Lord’s No Objection Certificate ( in case of tenant).
7. Two witness with their photocopy of electricity bill same with division.
8. Urban Area, copy of sale deed of assessment copy of house rent.
9. Rural Area    Verification by concern village sarpanch that house is under Lal Dora.

“What do I have after submitting my form? “After submission of requisition form you will get acknowledge slip mentioning details of the dated of submission of new connection application form and a unique application number. Thereafter an electrical engineer will visit your premises to verify the details you have submitted, of load connected and the dues existing at your site. Based on his verification your application will be accepted or rejected. If the connection is sanctioned a demand note will be raised and you will need to deposit the requisite amount at the UHBVN office.”

10                    This shows that after raising of demand notice by the OPs, the aforesaid amount of Rs.2140/- was deposited by the complainant for release of electricity connection.  The only defence taken by Ops is this, that since MC has issued a notice of eviction to the complainant, therefore it is not fit case for release of electricity connection in favour of complainant.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part. OPs have also written a letter dated 09-04-2015 bearing memo  no.1980 Annexure R-3 and reminder dated 13.4.2015 bearing memo no.1958 Annexure R-2 to MC Yamuna Nagar seeking No objection for release of electricity connection in favour of complainant. This letter was duly replied by MC vide letter dated 21-04-2015 bearing memo no. 2780 Annexure R-4, Expressing as the MC Yamuna Nagar  has issued notice of eviction to the complainant, therefore, it would not be in the fitness of things to release electricity connection in favour of complainant. Obtaining NOC from the M.C. shows malafide intention on the part of opposite party.  Guidelines for release of new electricity connections Annexure C-3 clearly says that in case of Govt. premises the allotment letter is required to be submitted along with form only and  in case of tenant, NOC of landlord is the condition. Complainant is not the tenant in the premises in question. She is an allottee. As such, there was no necessity of obtaining NOC from MC. Only submission of allotment letter was sufficient. Thus, ops cannot refuse electricity connection in favour of the complainant on the ground that the MC did not issue NOC or that notice of eviction from premises has been issued to complainant. Eviction proceedings are separate; it has no connection with release of electricity connection. The supply of electricity to residential house wherein the complainant with her daughters is living is essential amenity of life, without which it is very -2 difficult for her to stay in house .

11.                   Learned counsel Sh. R.P.Kaushik, for the OPs draw our attention towards certificate issued by M.C. Sangita Singhal Annexure R-11 wherein it has been mentioned that all other Maali’s and employees have vacated their quarters after being issued eviction  notice except Smt. Nirmala Mishra and all other old quarters have been demolished for renovation of the park. From the perusal of aforesaid certificate, it appears that same is procured one. However, from this certificate it is evident that Smt. Nirmala Mishra is working as maali in the Municipal Corporation and is still in possession of quarter in question.  The Ld Counsel for the OPs argued that earlier electricity connection was released to the complainant. As she was defaulter, therefore electricity connection was disconnected. Now till the time she clears the arrears, electricity connection cannot be issued to her. This argument of Ld Counsel is without any force. First of all, the ops did not take this plea in their written statement even the written statement has neither been amended nor any documentary evidence regarding arrears of electricity Bill of Rs 38362/-  has been filed by the OPs .Ld Counsel for OPs only tried to prove this plea from the oral statement of CW1 and further from affidavit Annexure RW/A but it is settled law that evidence beyond pleading cannot be looked into. This plea is after thought. Even if the complainant is said to be in arrears of electricity bill for which her electricity connection was disconnected, she cannot be denied electricity connection on this ground. Ld Counsel for the ops failed to show any rule, regulation or provision of law which debars or prohibit the issuance of electricity connection in the premises in which electricity connection was disconnected for want of payment of electricity bill. The OPs can well recover the amount of the arrears by taking recourse to law.

12                    For the reasons, recorded above, we are of the considered view that  complainant is entitled for electricity connection for which she has deposited requisite amount of Rs.2140/-. As such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be partly accepted. Accordingly, the present complaint is partly accepted. The OPs are directed to release the electricity connection in favour of complainant in the quarter/ premises in question situated at Nehru Park, Yamuna Nagar within 30 days from the date of this order. OPs are further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses Rs. 2000/-. Copy 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: 28.8.2015.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                MEMBER