Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/430/2015

Satpal Singh S/o Telu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Kamboj

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                          Complaint No. 430  of 2015.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 01.12.2015

                                                                                          Date of decision: 20.01.2017.

 

Satpal Singh aged about 50 years son of Shri Telu Ram, resident of village Rampur Khader, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. UHBVN Ltd. Operation Sub Division Chhachhrauli through its SDO.
2. Executive Engineer, UHBVN Ltd. Operation Division, Old D.C. Office, Yamuna Nagar.
3.  UHBVN Ltd Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Managing Director.  

   

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. R.K.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

              Sh. Balinder Singh,  Advocate, counsel for respondents. 

 

ORDER

 

1                    Complainant Satpal Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter will be referred as OPs) be directed to release the tubewell connection to the complainant immediately and further to pay compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.

2.                  Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant had applied for tubewell connection with the OPs in the year 2005 vide application No. 52927AP dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure C-1) and thereafter OPs issued a demanded notice  (Annexure C-6) vide which demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as consent money and the same was deposited vide receipt No. 253 Book No 086565 dated 01.12.2014 (Annexure C-2). Thereafter, the OPs directed the complainant to deposit Rs. 25,000/- on account of two span charges and the same was deposited vide receipt No. 321 dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure C-3). The complainant had also deposited a sum of Rs. 3150/- vide receipt No.322 dated 24.02.2015 (AnnexureC-4) as cost of meter. Thus, the complainant completed all the formalities as desired by the OPs but so far the connection has not been released by the Ops inspite of repeated requests and visit by him in this respect. Thus, due to non-releasing tubewell connection to the complainant despite receipt of entire amount, the OPs have committed deficiency and negligence in service and he has suffered a lot of mental agony, harassment as well as financial loss and lastly prayed for issuing directions to release the tubewell connection to the complainant immediately without any delay and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; no locus standi to file the present complaint; estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and have concealed the true and material facts and on merit it has not been denied that the complainant has not applied for tubewell connection. It has been submitted that the complainant was told that his tube well connection will be released as per seniority list maintained by the OPs as there is heavy pendency of tubewell connection and heavy load of work to install the tubewell connections. The OPs have issued a sale circular No. U-20/2011 vide which “The tubewell connection shall be released on the basis of seniority list framed as per completion of all formalities, deposit of final estimated amount, verification of test report and availability of material”. As per seniority list, the complainant falls at serial No….. so as and when the turn of the complainant will come as per seniority list, the tubewell connection will be released to him. The copy of sales circular No. U-20/2011 and U-11/2011 are Annexure R-1 and R-2 and seniority list is Annexure R-3.    As such, the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed straightway. 

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA and documents such as Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 120/- as Annexure C-1 Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 30,000/- as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 25,000/- as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 3150/-as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of notice dated 27.11.2014 as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of demand notice as annexure C-6  and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Pankaj Deswal, SDO, (OP) Sub Division, UHBVN Ltd. Chhachhrauli as Annexure R-1 and documents such as Photo copy of sale circular No. U-20/2011 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of sale circular No. U-11/2011 as Annexure R-2 and photo copy of sale circular No. U-11/2011 as Annexure R-3 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 carefully and minutely. 

7.                   It is not disputed that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.120/- Rs. 30,000/-, Rs 25,000/- and Rs. 3150/- on 04.03.2005, 01.12.2014, and 24.02.2015 respectively and his application for tubewell connection was registered in the month of March, 2005. The complainant took the plea in the complaint that he visited so many times to the OPs for releasing the tubewell connection but the OPs did not pay any heed to his genuine request.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that due to heavy pendency of the tubewell connections a seniority list has been maintained by the OPs and as per seniority list, the name of complainant falls at serial No….., so as and when his turn will come, the tubewell connection of the complainant will be released as per rules and regulations of the Nigam, hence the tubewell connection of the complainant could not be released. Lastly prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

9.                     From the perusal of reply filed by OPs and arguments advanced by counsel for both the parties, it is not disputed that the complainant applied for tubewell connection and completed all the formalities. From the perusal of Annexure C-1 & C-2 it is clear that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 120/- and Rs. 30,000/- on 04.03.2005 and 01.12.2014 respectively as security and consent money and Rs. 25,000/- and 3150/- on 24.02.2015 as spans charges and meter charges but the Ops failed to release the tubewell connection within stipulated period.  The plea of the OPs that due to heavy pendency of the tubewell connections a seniority list has been maintained by the OPs and as per seniority list, the name of complainant falls at serial No….., so as and when his turn will come the tubewell connection of the complainant will be released as per rules and regulations of the Nigam is not tenable as the OPs has failed to file any seniority list maintained by the OPs to prove their version. Further, as the as the complainant has completed all the formalities in the month of February, 2015 and sufficient time of about 2 years have already been elapsed. As such, the act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and thus the complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to release the tubewell connection of the complainant within a period of 30 days from the communication of this order and further to pay Rs. 3000/- as litigation expenses failing which complainant will 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: 20.01.2017.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                   

                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                MEMBER