Haryana

Jind

CC/54/2012

Ram Phal - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 54 of 2012
                            Date of institution:-6.2.2012
                            Date of decision:-8.7.2016
Ramphal s/o Jhunda r/o village Badhana, Tehsil and District Jind.

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
UHBVN through the Sub Divisional Officer, OP Sub Division, Naguran, District Jind. 
The Executive Engineer, OP Division, UHBVN, Jind, District Jind.
                                 …Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. Surjit Sheokand Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. A.S. Saini Adv. for opposite parties. 
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that complainant is agriculturist by profession and he  had applied for tube-well connection  of electricity of his fields vide applicationNo.23668 dated 15.5.2008 and he had deposited a sum of Rs.3750/- vide receipt No.204/47 dated 15.5.2008, a sum of Rs.20,000/- vide receipt No.056358 dated 7.10.2009, a sum of and  Rs.21,000/- vide receipt No.28050502 dated 22.4.2010 to the opposite parties. The opposite parties again demanded a sum of Rs.14,000/- more towards cost as per 
            Ramphal Vs UHBVN etc.
                   …2…
estimate. The opposite parties have not released the tube-well connection to him. Due to non-releasing of tube-well connection he has suffered huge loss. The complainant served a legal notice dated 24.12.2011 through his counsel Sh. Ishwar Singh Sheokand Adv. upon the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed  to release the tube-well connection immediately without charging any amount. It is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-  as  compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.  
2.      Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the written reply agitating  therein that the complainant has got no   cause of action and locus-standi  to file the present complaint  and the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum. On merits, it is contended that the electricity connection has already been released to the complainant on 14.12.2013 vide meter account No.KB04-735 connected load 10 BHP. As such the tube-well connection has already been released to the complainant about one year ago prior to receiving the summon from this Forum. Now there is no dispute for releasing the connection and the complaint of the complainant has become in-fructuous automatically and the same is liable to be dismissed.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with special compensatory cost  is prayed for.  

            Ramphal Vs UHBVN etc.
                   …3…
3.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of payment made with application Ex. C-2, copies of receipts Ex. C-3 and Ex. C-4, copy of letter dated 14.12.2011 Ex. C-5, postal receipt Ex. C-6 and  copy of legal notice dated 24.12.2011 Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the  copy of Service Connection Order Ex. OP-1, copy of application and agreement form Ex. OP-2, copies of payment made with application Ex. OP-3 and Ex. OP-4, copy of demand notice Ex. OP-5, copy of rough sketch Ex. OP-6, copy of detail of rate list Ex. OP-7, copy of labour charges Ex. OP-8, copy of memo dated 15.4.2010 Ex. OP-9, copy of memo dated 1.7.2011 Ex. OP-10, copy of application Ex. OP-11, copy of rough sketch Ex. OP-12, copy of document Ex. OP-13, copy of letter Ex. OP-14 and affidavit of Sh. Ajit Kumar, SDO Ex. OP-15 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard counsels of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. There is no dispute regarding applying for tube-well connection of electricity  vide application No.23668 dated 15.5.2008 by the complainant and he had deposited the security subsequently he deposited the whole of the amount as demanded by the Nigam in the year 2010 but inspite of  depositing the whole of the amount estimated by the Nigam the opposite parties failed to release the tube-well connection as per demand notice. Ultimately complainant has also sent the notice through his counsel on 24.12.2011 Ex. C-7 as well as the copy of the postal receipt Ex. C-6. Inspite of the given the notice to the opposite parties failed to release 
            Ramphal Vs UHBVN etc.
                   …4…
the tube-well connection under the compelling circumstances, the complainant has to force to file the complaint on 6.2.2012. 
5.    It is admitted fact that the opposite parties have released the connection to the complainant on 14.12.2013 during the pendency of the complaint. The  counsel for complainant has  argued that complainant was  forced to file the complaint  because the opposite parties have failed to release the connection. It is not disputed that opposite parties have issued the connection  on 14.12.2013 meaning thereby the complainant was dragged in the litigation unnecessary without any reason. Opposite parties have failed to explain the reason why they have not released the connection since 2008 to 2013. In this way, opposite parties are deficient in service to provide the connection to the complainant within stipulated period as mentioned usually in the demand notice dated 14.12.2011. Hence, the complainant has been forced to file the complaint and opposite parties have dragged into unwanted litigation. The complainant is entitled litigation expenses as well as mental pain, agony and  harassment. The complaint is partly allowed with cost. We assessed the cost of proceeding Rs.2200/- and compensation of Rs.3000/- is awarded to the complainant. The order be complianced within one month after receiving the certified copy of order, failing which the complainant is entitled interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 6.2.2012 till its full realization of amount. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 8.7.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

                       Ramphal Vs UHBVN etc.
                
Present:-    Sh. Surjit Sheokand Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. A.S. Saini Adv. for opposite parties. 

         Arguments heard. To come up on 8.7.2016 for orders.

                                President,
            Member             Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 5.7.2016

Present:-    Sh. Surjit Sheokand Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. A.S. Saini Adv. for opposite parties. 

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint  is partly allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

                                President,
            Member             Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 8.7.2016