Haryana

Karnal

CC/263/2019

Karambeer - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Viney Bansal

15 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 263 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.13.05.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 15.10.2019

 

Karambeer son of Shri Babu Ram, resident of village Kalsora, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

UHBVNL through its SDO, Sub Division (OP), Garhi Birbal, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri H.N. Bansal Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Virender Sachdeva Advocate for opposite party.

                 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is in actual physical possession of land measuring 0K-16M out of land measuring 8K-0M, situated in Ladi no.383, situated at village Kalsora District Karnal, which the complainant has purchased from a villager vide agreement to sell dated 24.10.2017 and the complainant has constructed a house over the same and the same is being used by the complainant for his residential purpose. Since the seller had refused to execute the sale deed as such the civil litigation is going on between the parties but the same is not subject matter of the present complaint. As the complainant has constructed residential house mentioned above and residing therein, thus, the complainant in order to get the electricity connection applied to the OP and as per the directions of the OP the complainant deposited the requisite amount of Rs.4775/-, vide receipt no.QHDF7499849419 dated 2.5.2019 and also submitted necessary documents alongwith written documents regarding his lawful possession. After depositing the amount as per law the complainant contacted with the OP but complainant found that they want some unwanted money. On asking, the OP starting postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. They started sending feeler/tout to the complainant seeking unwanted money and when complainant refused to pay any unwanted money, the OP has refused to issue/release the new regular domestic electricity connection to the complainant. The complainant is legally entitled to get regular domestic electricity connection in his house and OP as per the provisions of Indian Electricity Act is bound to issue/release a regular domestic electricity connection within a period of one month after receipt of the application but since the OP has refused to release the electricity domestic connection despite the fact that the complainant has completed all the formalities and OP has started claiming that the complainant has not attached the documents of ownership or no objection certificate from the owner, thus they will not release the electricity connection to the residential house of the complainant. The objection of the OP in this regard is totally wrong as according to the settled preposition of law and on the basis of various authorities of Hon’ble High Court in which the condition for release of electricity connection is that the occupation of complainant should be bonafide and legitimate and the occupier can obtain new electricity connection in his premises and the same does not depend upon consent of the owner and there is no necessity of obtaining permission of the owner and the settled preposition of law is that the agreement of grant of electricity connection is between the complainant on one side and the electricity board on the other side and as such on the basis of provisions of law the OP cannot refuse to release the new electricity connection to the complainant and their refusal to give new electricity connection amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant had visited the office of OP so many times but till today the OP has not issued/released the new domestic electric connection to the residential house of the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant applied for electricity connection in the office of the OP. But in the meantime i.e. on 2.5.2019 the original owner of the property in question moved an application to the OP for not releasing the connection to the complainant as the owner of the said house disclosed about the pendency of the civil suit regarding the same property are going on between the complainant and original owner Kiran wife of Naresh Kumar which is pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indri and status qua order dated 28.09.2018 has been passed. It is further pleaded that after that the OP wrote a letter dated 8.5.2019 to produce the ownership proof of said property as per the sales circular of the Nigam but complainant failed to do so.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and closed the evidence on 6.8.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Paramjit Singh SDO Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 30.09.2019.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainants, in brief, is that the complainant applied  a domestic electricity connection with the OP  and as per the directions of the OP, the complainant deposited the requisite amount of Rs.4775/-, vide receipt no.QHDF7499849419 dated 2.5.2019 and also submitted necessary documents alongwith written documents regarding his lawful possession. After depositing the amount as per law, the complainant requested the OP so many times for releasing of the electricity connection but OP did not do so and postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant is legally entitled to get regular domestic electricity connection in his house and OP as per the provisions of Indian Electricity Act is bound to issue/release a regular domestic electricity connection within a period of one month after receipt of the application but since the OP has refused to release the electricity domestic connection despite the fact that the complainant has completed all the formalities..

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP, in brief, is that the complainant applied for electricity connection in the office of the OP. But in the meantime i.e. on 2.5.2019 the original owner of the property in question moved an application to the OP for not releasing the connection to the complainant as the owner of the said house disclosed about the pendency of the civil suit regarding the same property are going on between the complainant and original owner Kiran wife of Naresh Kumar which is pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indri and status qua order dated 28.09.2018 has been passed. After that the OP wrote a letter dated 8.5.2019 to produce the ownership proof of said property as per the sales circular of the Nigam but complainant failed to produce the same.

8.             As per the complainant, he is actual physical possession of the land, situated at village Kalsora, District Karnal. The complainant has constructed a house over the said land and residing therein. The complainant applied to get the electricity connection and deposited the requisite amount of Rs.4775/- on 2.5.2019 with the OP. The complainant is legally entitled to get the regular domestic electricity connection in his house and OP is bound to issue a regular domestic electricity connection, as er the provision of Indian Electricity Act.

9.             As per OP, the complainant failed to produce the title deed/ownership of over the property. The complainant has concealed the fact that civil litigation regarding the same property is going on between the complainant and original owner Kiran, which is pending in the court of Learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indri. The learned ACJ(SD) Indri has directed both parties to maintain status qua.

10.            There is dispute going on between the complainant and Smt. Kiran regarding the property. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is in actual physical possession of the land and also constructed a house over the said land and without electricity. The family of the complainant is facing very difficulties.

11.            The dispute regarding the physicial possession is to be decided by the Civil Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the case titled as Puran Chand Ranga & Ors. Versus Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. 1996(1) Civil Court Cases 676 wherein Hon’ble High Court held that Electricity-Lawful occupier of premises-Can obtain electric connection without obtaining permission of owner of premises and in case Dinesh Kumar Singh Versus Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Balley Road, Patna & Ors 2010 AIR(Patna) 171 in which Hon’ble High Court held that grant of new electricity connection to the occupier of premises is not dependent upon the consent from the owner because, if the owner and occupier are estranged, owner may refuse to give consent, thus, denying civic amenity to occupier-The only condition is that his occupation should be bonafide and legitimate petition allowed-Respondents directed process the application of the petitioner immediately.

12.            Keeping in view that the ratio of the law laid down in abovesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that if the complainant is in the physical possession over the building in question then electricity connection be issued subject to the decision of the civil suit pending in the civil court at Indri. The present complaint disposed off accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:15.10.2019                                                President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes                                                            Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member