Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/218/2014

Hari Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL through its Secretary - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit Kumar

26 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 218 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 9.5.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 26.11.2015.

Hari Singh aged about 72 years son of late Sh. Rati Ram son of Sh. Jhandu Ram resident of Village Bakarpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

 

1. U.H.B.V.N.L. through its Secretary, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula
2. Xen. UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar.
3. The SDO, UHBVNL, Sub Urban, Sub Division Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ..Opposite parties.  

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Amit Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for OPs.   

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Hari Singh 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 to quash the impugned notice bearing No. 504 dated 18.3.2014 and to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of loss of crop due to non supply of electricity connection and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as Rs. 11000/-as litigation expenses.     

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint as alleged by the complainant are that the father of complainant namely Sh. Rati Ram son of Sh. Jhandu Ram  had applied for tubewell connection of 3 BHP vide application No. AP-28462 dated 30.11.2005. Thereafter, the OPs issued a demand notice to Sh. Rati Ram to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and in compliance of the said demand notice Sh. Rati Ram had deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 24.5.2007 vide receipt No. BA-16N-377/39651. Unfortunately Sh. Rati Ram had died in the month of October 2009 leaving behind his three sons namely Sh. Krishan Lal, Hari Singh and Isham Singh and after the death of Sh. Rati Ram his aforesaid three sons inherited his entire estate by virture of Will No. 175 dated 13.6.2008 duly registered in the office of Joint/Sub Registrar, Jagadhri. Out of these three sons, Sh. Isham Singh had died on 31.3.2014 leaving behind his three legal heirs namely Sh. Jitender Kumar, Sachin Kumar and Sh. Vishal Kamboj. Sh. Krishan Lal brother of the complainant and legal heirs of deceased Sh. Isham Singh namely Jitender Kumar, Sachin Kumar and Vishal Kamboj now authorized the complainant to pursue the matter in dispute on their behalf before this Forum and since then the complainant is pursuing the matter and repeatedly requested the OPs to release the tubewell connection in his name and also requested them that he is ready to comply with the necessary terms and conditions of the Nigam. Only after repeated pursuance of the matter, the OPs have issued a notice No. 504 dated 18.3.2014 to the complainant demanding therein an amount of Rs. 1,15,700/- i.e. Rs. 1,12,500/- as pole/span charges and Rs. 3200/- as meter cost and under the said notice the OPs directed to deposit the demanded amount within 15 days. The demand of such a huge amount under the said notice for a 2.25 KVA connection is not tenable in the eyes of law and hence, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed on the following grounds:

i)          The tubewell connection was applied vide application No. AP28462 dated 30.11.2005 i.e. about 9 years ago and the applicant/complainant is ready to deposit the cost of electricity connection as per policy under which late Sh. Rati Ram had applied. So, the OPs cannot demand an amount of Rs. 1,12,500/- as cost of spans and cannot demand Rs. 3200/- as cost of meter.

ii)         Due to non issuance of tubewell connection to the complainant, the complainant has suffered huge financial loss approximately R. 10,00,000/- during last 9 years as the near about 9 acres land of the complainant remained un-irrigated.

iii)         During the tenure of Ch. Devi Lal Ex- Chief Minister there was a policy of releasing the tubewell connection in the proximity of river Yamuna up to one kilometer within a month only and it is surprising that when the Government and the Board knows it very well that the proximity of river Yamuna need the tubewell connection on priority basis then why the connection has not been released for a long period of 9 years.

iv)        Under the impugned notice, the OPs are demanding the cost of 9 poles whereas electricity line is stretched up to the next acre of land of cousin of the complainant namely Balwant Singh son of Sh. Ram Dia  from where the electricity connection is to be released to the complainant. As such there is no need to install 9 poles to issue the electricity connection to the complainant. Actually only two poles are required to release the tube well connection of the complainant.

v)         In view of the earlier judgment of this Forum, OPs cannot force the consumers to opt for new scheme who has applied under the old scheme.

3.                     As the father of the complainant namely Rati Ram had also applied under the old scheme in the year 2005, so, the OPs cannot demand charges from the complainant under new scheme, so, the impugned notice is wrong, illegal and not binding upon the complainant as the OPs have not released the tubewell connection of the complainant and there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence this complaint.

4.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been stated that the complainant applied to get the tubewell connection with the OPs but has failed to complete the formalities in compliance of sale circular No. U-11/2011 and No. U-25/2013, despite of memo No. 504 dated 18.3.2014 issued by the OPs and after waiting for sufficient period the file of the complainant for releasing the tubewell connection has been cancelled. As such, the present complaint is not maintainable. All the other allegations have been specifically denied. It has been further mentioned that as per sale circular No. U-11/2011 the rate of one span was Rs. 7000/-. However, the same has been revised to Rs. 12,500/- per span vide sale circular No. U25/2013 and the complainant was required to deposit the span charges at the rate of 12,500/- per span. In this connection the complainant has accordingly been informed vide memo No. 504 dated 18.3.2014 as the complainant failed to deposit the amount and to complete the formalities. Hence the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and affidavit of Sh. Krishan Lal and LRs of deceased brother Isham Singh namely Jitender Kumar, Sachin Kumar and Vishal Kamboj as Annexure CY regarding pursue the matter and documents such as photo copy of memo No. 504 dated 18.3.2014 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Will as Annexure C-2 and copy of judgment of this Forum of case titled as Suresh Kumar vs. UHBVNL, CC No.1181 of 2011 decided on 11.4.2012 as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Munish Kumar, SDO (OP) Sub Divn. UHBVNL Sub Urban, Jagadhri as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of demand notice bearing No. 352 dated 27.4.2007 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of circular No. U-25/2013 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of sale circular No. U-11/2011 as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7.                     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.

8.                     It is not disputed that father of the complainant late Sh. Rati Ram had deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 24.5.2007 which is evident from Annexure R-1 demand notice bearing memo No. 352 dated 27.4.2007 issued by UHBVNL i.e. OP No.3. Further it is not disputed that OP No.3 issued a letter bearing No. 504 dated 18.3.2014 in the name of Sh. Rati Ram son of Sh. Jhandu Ram father of the complainant in which an additional amount of Rs. 1,12,500/- on account of cost of spans and Rs. 3200/- as cost of meter has been demanded prior to releasing the tubewell connection vide application No. 28462AP dated 30.11.2005 (Annexure C-1).

9.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that father of the complainant Sh. Sh. Rati Ram has since expired in the month of October 2009 and executed a Will ( Annexure C-2) regarding movable and immovable property in favour of his sons namely Krishan Lal, Hari Singh and Isham Singh in equal shares. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that other LRs namely Sh. Krishan Lal and legal heirs of Sh. Isham Singh has executed an affidavit Annexure CY and authorized the complainant to pursue the matter before this Hon’ble Forum on their behalf. It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that only two poles are required to install the tubewell connection of the complainant whereas OPs has illegally demanded cost of 7 spans/poles and regarding this he made a statement recorded separately today in the court i.e. on 26.11.2015 that he is ready to deposit the cost of two spans/poles. Lastly prayed that as the complainant is ready to deposit the cost of two poles and security amount is already with the OPs. So, the remaining amount mentioned in the letter bearing No. 504 dated 18.3.2014 (Annexure C-1) may be waived of and connection of the complainant be also released.

10.                   On the other hand, counsel for the OPs Sh. Zile Singh argued that first of all the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the ground that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as defined in under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the consumer protection Act. The security amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by the father of the complainant Sh. Rati Ram son of Sh. Jhandu Ram on 24.5.20007 and as per version of the complainant, Sh. Rati Ram had expired in October 2009 and after the death of Sh. Rati Ram none of his LRs ever applied for transfer of security amount in their names. Learned counsel for the OPs further draw our attention towards letter bearing memo No. 504 dated 18.3.2014 (Annexure C-1) in which an additional amount of Rs. 1,12,500/- and Rs. 3200/- was demanded from late Sh. Rati Ram son of Sh. Jhandu Ram instead of Sh. Hari Singh which proves that the security amount and application for releasing the tubewell connection still stands in the name of deceased Sh. Rati Ram i.e. father of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that complainant failed to complete the formalities in compliance of sale Circular No. U-11/2011 and U-25/2013, despite of memo No.504 dated 18.3.2014 and after waiting sufficient period, the file of the complainant for release of tubewell connection has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that Rs. 7000/- per span was fixed by the Nigam vide sale Circular No. U-11/2011 and now the same has been revised to Rs. 12500/- per span vide sale circular No. U-25/2013. So, the memo bearing No. 504 was rightly issued by the OPs. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11.                   After hearing both the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the security amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by late Sh. Rati Ram son of Sh. Jhandu Ram on 24.5.2007 which is evident from Annexure R-1 and the present complaint has been filed by Sh. Hari Singh son of Rati Ram. The arguments advanced by counsel for the complainant is not tenable that the complainant falls under the definition of consumer. The security amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by Sh. Rati Ram father of the complainant in his individual name in the month of May 2007 and he expired in the month of October 2009. From the perusal of his Will Annexure C-2 it is clear that all the movable or immovable property has been given to his three sons namely Krishan Lal, Hari Singh and Isham Singh in equal shares and the present complaint has been filed by only Sh. Hari Singh. The complainant totally failed to file any documentary evidence showing that the security amount of Rs. 20,000/- has ever been transferred in his name by the OPs. Even he has not filed any copy of application showing that he has ever applied to the OPs to transfer the security amount in the name of LRs of deceased late Sh. Rati Ram. Mere filing of the affidavit Annexure CY complainant has no right to get the electricity connection in his name. Even, from the perusal of contents of this affidavit it is clear “that LRs have only authorized the complainant to pursue the matter and not to get the connection in his individual name”.

                        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 and other LRs of the deceased are at liberty to pursue the matter with the OPs for releasing the tubewell connection after completing the formalities and getting security amount transferred in their names 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: 26.11.2015.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                   

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA) 

                                                                                                   MEMBER