Haryana

Ambala

CC/403/2016

Manjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.Sharma

12 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                     FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  403 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         :  27.10.2016

                                                          Date of decision   :  12.02.2018

 

Manjit Singh aged 36 years s/o Sh. Chhajju Ram r/o Village Landa, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

1.       Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Vidyut Sadan, Sector-6, Panchkula, through Executive Engineer, Operation Divisoin, UHBVN, Ambala Cantt.

2.       The Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, Kesri, UHBVN, District Ambala.  

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                            

 

Present:       Sh. P.S.Sharma,  counsel for complainant.  

                   Sh.Chandeep Singh Bindra, counsel for Ops.

.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant is in possession as co-sharer/co-owner of the land comprised in K/K No.260/249)/418 khasra  No.62//23/1 situated within  the revenue estate  of village Landa, Tehsil Barara District Ambala alongwith Jasdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Pardeep Singh. The complainant  approached  the OP No.2 for submitting the application form and other necessary documents for releasing  the tube-well electricity connection in his name, for his tube-well installed by  him  in his hand comprised in K/k No.260/(249)/418 khasra no.62//23/1 situated within the revenue estate  of village Landa, Tehsil Barara District Ambala, but the OP No.2 refused to accept  the application  and other necessary required documents on the plea that until and unless No Objection Certificate from other co-sharers  is produced, the application  and other documents cannot be accepted nor the electricity connection can be released. On which the complainant approached the OP No.1 and told that the OP No.2 refused to accept the application for releasing the tube-well electricity connection on which the OP No.1 also endorsed the plea of the officials. The complainant  requested the OP No.2 that since their office has already released  the tube-well electricity connection to other co-sharer namely Jasdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh without any objection from him, then why the electricity connection cannot be released to him but the OP No.2 refused to concede  the genuine  request of the complainant and refused to receive the application and other necessary documents  for releasing the tube-well electricity connection. A legal notice dated 20.08.2016 was served through registered AD to the OPs but not action has been taken by the OPs. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice OPs appeared and filed written statement submitting that  the complainant approached the OP No.2 for the releasing the tube-well electricity connection in his name, but the OP No.2 refused to accept the application because No Objection Certificate  of the co-owners was not obtained by the complainant which is mandatory  for the release  of the new tube-well connection over  the land where the ownership of the land  is joint. The Opposite parties are bound to follow the rules and regulations prescribed by the Government. They also stated that the complainant is bound to fulfill all the conditions required for the new tube-well connection. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and the present compliant is liable to be dismissed.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-4 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs has also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 and closed his evidence

4.                We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file. It is clear that complainant has applied the tube well connection being a co-sharer of the land in question but the OPs did not entertain the application for releasing the electricity connection in his name due to no objection certificate of the co-owner was not obtained by the complainant which is mandatory for the release of the new tube-well connection over the land where the ownership of the land is joint.

                   Counsel for the OPs has drawn our attention that the present complainant does not fall under the definition of the consumer because complainant has not deposited any security or paid any required application fees etc. We have gone through the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(I) (d) (i) which reads as under:

                   “Consumer means any person who-

(i)                “buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or party paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any use of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”.

(ii)               “Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services of any commercial purpose”

                   Similarly in the present case, complainant has not produced any evidence whether he is a consumer of the OPs or not. He also failed to place on record whether he has deposited any security or paid any required application fees for releasing the electricity connection to the OPs. It means that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops because no consideration has been paid or to be promised to be paid as per the Section 2(I) (d) (i) of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and not hired the services from the OPs. So, the complaint devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed with no order to costs. However, complainant  is at liberty to file the fresh complaint after completing the all formalities along with the depositing the security and any other charges are required for applying the connection, if any cause of action arises. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 12.02.2018

 

                                                                 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)     (D.N. ARORA)      

Member                            Member                         President