Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/324/2015

Rajesh Kumar S/o Gurdayal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Raghbir Singh

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                         Complaint No. 324  of 2015.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 03.09.2015.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 25.04.2016.

 

Rajesh Kumar aged about 42 years son of late Shri Gurdayal Singh, resident of VPO Kishanpura Damla, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Sub Division No.1, Yamuna Nagar through S.D.O. (OP). 

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

3. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, through its Managing Director.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             …Respondents.  

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.                            

 

Present: Sh. Raghubir Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.     

              Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate, counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that father of the complainant namely Gurdayal Singh had applied for tubewell connection for agriculture land with the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) vide application No. 16264-AP and deposited security amount of Rs. 1000/- vide receipt No. 339 dated 8.7.2009 as per rules. Father of the complainant Sh. Gurdayal died on 22.4.2010. The complainant has many times approached the OP No1 for issuance of demand notice but the Op No.1 did not give any satisfactory answer and has not issued any demand notice to the complainant. Ultimately, complainant moved an application dated 25.03.2014 to OP No.1 requesting for issuance of demand notice. OPs Nigam has issued an amended sale circular No. U-28/2014 for revival of applications of the tubewell connections and as such as per the said circular the complainant moved an application for revival of the tubewell connection No. 16264-AP dated 8.7.2009 to Op No.1 which was entered at serial No. 1241 dated 6.7.2015, copy of which is Ex. C-5 but till today no action has been taken on the said application. Hence, the OPs be directed to release the tubewell connection to the complainant immediately and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct, has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been stated that complainant is not consumer of the OPs, so, there exist no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OPs. The OPs Nigam have issued the demand notice in the name of Sh. Gurdayal Singh but the said demand notice was not complied so as per rules and regulations of the Nigam, the application of Sh. Gurdayal Singh was rejected/cancelled. It has been further submitted that OPs have issued the sale circular No. U-28/2014 for revival of the applications for tubewell connections. The complainant made an application under the said sale circular, however, the complainant has not completed the demanded formalities under the said scheme, so, whenever, the complainant will complete the required formalities under the said scheme, the said case of the complainant will be sent to the Higher Authorities for necessary sanction. Rest contents of the complaint have been denied. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service on their parts.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 1000/- deposited by Gurdayal Singh as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of application dated 25.3.2014 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of death certificate of Gurdayal Singh as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of Sales Circular No. U-28/2014 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of application dated 6.7.2015 as annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. S.L.Goel, SDO, as Annexure RW/A and closed evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     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 the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant has not filed any cogent evidence that the said application for issuance of tubewell connection and amount of Rs. 1000/- deposited vide receipt no. 339/054926 dated 8.7.2009 in the name of Gurdayal Singh father of the complainant has been transferred in his name after the death of his father Gurdayal Singh being only sole legal heir. It is not disputed that father of the complainant applied the tubewell connection in the year 2009 and died on 22.04.2010, which is evident from death certificate (Annexure C-3) whereas the present complaint has been filed on 3.9.2015, no cogent evidence i.e. documentary evidence has been placed on file from which it is evident that the application amount whatsoever deposited by deceased Gurdayal Singh father of the complainant has been transferred in the name of complainant Rajesh Kumar. Further, as per the version of the OPs Nigam, OPs have already issued demand notice in the name of Sh. Gurdayal Singh which was not complied, so, as per rules and regulations of the Nigam, application of the Gurdayal Singh was rejected/ cancelled. Further, as per the version of the OPs, complainant has not completed the demanded formalities under the said scheme, so, whenever the complainant will complete the required formalities under the said scheme, the case of the complainant will be sent to the Higher Authorities for necessary sanction and to rebut this version of the Ops, complainant failed to file any cogent evidence.

8.                     Resultantly, after going through the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that as the complainant has neither deposited the security amount nor any payment has been made by him, so, he has not hired any services from the OPs and does not fall under the definition of Consumer as defined in under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to pursue the matter with the OPs for releasing the tubewell connection after completing the formalities and getting security amount transferred in his name as per rules and regulations and fulfilling the requirements of the Nigam. 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. 25.04.2016.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                MEMBER.