Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/101/2016

Phool Chand S/o Leelu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Kamboj

04 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 101 of 2016.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 28.03.2016.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 04.11.2016

    Phool Chand aged about 46 years son of Shri Leelu Ram, resident of village Baindi, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. U.H.B.V.N.Limited Sub Division, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar through its S.D. (OP).
2. U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar through its Executive Engineer.
3. U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan Panchkula through its Managing Director.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ..Respondents.  

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Pankaj Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Sh.  Balinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for OPs.   

 

ORDER

1.                     Complainant Sh. Phool Chand 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 release the tubewell connection of the complainant and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant is Harijan by community and belongs to Schedule Caste Category and is an agriculturist by profession and the complainant had applied for tube well connection vide application No. 55657/AP dated 11.06.2010 and had deposited an amount of Rs. 750 vide book No. 059919, Receipt No. 88 on 11.06.2010. Till date, the complainant has not received any demand notice. However, the OP No.1 called the complainant in the month of April 2014 and directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 120/- and thus the OP No.1 received a sum of Rs. 120/- from the complainant vide Book No. 086630 receipt No. 346 dated 16.04.2014 and at the same time the Ops assured the complainant that his tubewell connection will be released very shortly and asked the complainant to construct a tubewell room and also to get a boring of tubewell.  As per rules and regulations of the Nigam, the electricity tubewell connection should be released within 9 months from the date of deposit of security but the OPs have even not sent the demand notice inspite of passing more than 5 years whereas per the scheme of Government of Haryana First preference of electricity connection will be given to a person belonging to scheduled caste. The complainant visited so many times to the office of Ops for releasing the tubewell connection but they did not do the needful and continued to prolong the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complaint is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct;  complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous; complainant has not comet to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts and on merit it has been mentioned that the complainant had applied for the tubewell connection under general category vide application No. 55657/AP on 11.06.2010 but the complainant had not completed the formalities of Nigam and not deposited the demanded consent money. The OP No.1 “issued a notice to the complainant vide memo No. 4777 dated 24.03.2012 that the JE in charge of Sub Division visited your site to prepare of estimate on 8.12.2011 and found that neither any Kotha was constructed at the site nor the fittings was done. Due to this reason estimate could not be prepared and the application for tubewell connection was cancelled. In fact, the complainant again filed an application after two years for renewal of tubewell connection file on 16.04.2014 and deposited an amount of Rs. 120/- vide receipt No. 346 dated 16.04.2014. It has been further mentioned that the OPs had issued consent money demand notice up to 31.12.2012, after that no demand notice has been issued under general category. After issuance of demand notice to the complainant” the tubewell connection of the complainant shall be released as per rules and regulations on the basis of seniority list framed after completion of all the formalities, deposit of final estimated amount, verification of test report and availability of material.  Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of receipt of amounting to Rs. 750/- dated 16.06.2010 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of receipt of amounting to Rs. 120/- dated 16.04.2014 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of schedule caste certificate as Annexure C-3 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Dharamvir Singh, SDO UHBVNL Sub Division, Radaur as Annexure RA and document such as Photo copy of notice memo No. 4777 dated 24.02.2012 regarding non installation of tubewell kotha and fittings 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.                     It is not disputed that the complainant had applied for tubewell connection vide application No. 55657/AP dated 11.06.2010  and deposited an amount of Rs. 750/- vide Book No. 059919 Receipt No. 88 dated 11.06.2010 and Rs. 120/- vide Book No. 086638 receipt No. 346 dated 16.04.2014, which is evident from Annexure C-1 and C-2.

8.                     The version of the complainant that as per rules and regulations of the Nigam the electricity tubewell connection should be released within 9 months from the date of deposit of security amount but the OPs have even not sent the demand notice to the complainant inspite of passing of more than 5 years is not tenable as the complainant failed to complete the formalities in compliance of letter memo No. 4777 dated 24.02.2012, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the JE in charge of Sub Division visited the site of complainant for preparation of estimate on dated 08.12.2011 and found that neither any Kotha has been installed nor fitting has been done and the complainant was directed to make the tubewell kotha and fitting within 15 days otherwise his test report will  be failed/cancelled. Although no affidavit in support of the report of said J.E. has been placed on file by the Ops Nigam but at the same time complainant has also not rebutted the version of the OPs by filing re-joinder (replication) of the written statement filed by the OPs and further has also not placed on file any representation made to the OPs Department against the report of said J.E. The complainant has himself admitted in para No.2 of his complaint that he has deposited Rs. 120/- vide receipt No. 346 dated 16.4.2014 for renewal of tubewell connection file. Meaning thereby that the earlier application of the complainant for releasing the tubewell connection was cancelled by the OPs Nigam but when the Ops Nigam has renewed the application of the complainant then it cannot be said that complainant is not entitled to get release the tubewell connection. The Ops Nigam has neither disclosed in his reply that the name of complainant stands at what serial number nor any seniority list has been placed on file by the OPs. A considerable time of near about 2 years have already been lapsed after renewal of the previous application of the complainant but till date the OPs have not issued any demand notice to complainant.

                        We are of the considered view that the OPs Nigam has wrongly withheld the application of the complainant due to reasons best known to them. Hence, we direct the OPs Nigam that the case of the complainant be considered and issue a demand notice after preparation of estimate etc. within a period of 60 days and after depositing the demanded amount the connection will be released as per Nigam Rules. Accordingly, the present complaint stands disposed off. A 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.

Announced: 04.11.2016.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                    (S.C.SHARMA)                                    PRESIDENT

                                     MEMBER