Haryana

Karnal

CC/508/2022

Seema - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Vinay Bansal

17 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No. 508 of 2022

                                                      Date of instt.31.08.2022

                                                      Date of Decision:17.11.2023

Seema wife of Sandeep, resident of Alipura Road, village Kohand, District Karnal, age 34 years, UID no.6223 6013 3649.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

UHBVNL through its SDO, Sub Division 131-City Gharaunda, Division Sub-Urban no.2, Karnal.

                                                                …..Opposite Party.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Dr. Suman Singh……Member

          

Argued by:  Shri Vinay Bansal, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Naveen Kumar, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is owner in possession of a residential house measuring situated in residential colony located at Alipura Road, village Kohand, District Karnal, vide sale deed no.2448 dated 22.11.2018. This colony is in existence for a petty long time and more than 200 houses are constructed in this vicinity. The entire locality is consisting of/in the shape of residential houses and commercial shops etc. and in the entire locality electricity supply has been provided by the OP and individual residential house holders and shop holders are having their separate electricity connection. The complainant also applied for issuance of electricity connection for her residential house, vide application no.L31-322-16 dated 02.03.2022 and deposited an amount of Rs.4750/-, vide receipt dated 02.03.2022 to the OP and also submitted document of ownership, upon which the OP directed the complainant to provide the electricity bills and ID proofs of the neighbourers, which were supplied to the OP by the complainant and the OP directed the complainant to wait for sometime so that the necessary formalities be completed. Now after passing of petty long time, the complainant approached the OP and asked about the progress of installation of the electricity meter/connection, upon which the OP told that some litigation has been started between the colonizer on one side and the private individual/villager on other side and as such until and unless dispute is resolved between them, electricity connection cannot be released. Then complainant enquired about the matter and found that there is no such dispute and no injunction of any kind has been passed by any court.  Thereafter, complainant again approached the OP, due to which the OP became furious and flatly refused to accede the request of the complainant to issue/install the electricity connection/meter in the house of the complainant by saying that the department has already issued numerous electricity connection in the vicinity and now no extra connection will be installed. The complainant is legally entitled to get regular domestic electricity connection in her house and the 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 as such on the basis of the provisions of law the OP cannot refuse to release the new electricity connection to the complainant. The electricity is basic necessary and refusal on the part of the OP for issuance of electricity connection to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that  the complainant applied for an electricity connection in the office of the OP. The OP then wrote letter dated 29.04.2022 to the office of D.T.P. Karnal for verification of site whether same is approved or not. In response to said letter, the D.T.P. has issued letter no.1822/GVA-51 dated 04.05.2022 in which it stated that the house of the complainant is situated in an unauthorized area and previously their office has demolished the roads and building etc. in the said colony, hence no permission has been granted to release connection in the said vicinity. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of sale deed Ex.C2, photographs Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, copy of payment receipt Ex.C5, message of OP Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 05.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ankush C.C. Ex.OP1/A, copy of letter dated 29.04.2022 Ex.OP1, copy of reply of letter dated 29.04.2022 Ex.OP2, copy of letter dated 20.09.2022 Ex.OP3, copy of connection form Ex.OP4, copy of attested copy of registry Ex.OP5, copy of attested copy of bond Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on 03.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant

 is owner in possession of a residential house situated in residential colony located at Alipura Road, village Kohand, District Karnal. This colony is in existence for a long time and more than 200 houses are constructed in this vicinity. In the entire locality electricity supply has been provided by the OP. The complainant also applied for issuance of electricity connection for her residential house and deposited an amount of Rs.4750/- to the OP and also submitted document of ownership etc. OP had refused to issue the electricity connection in the house of complainant on the false ground that colony is unapproved. Complainant requested the OP to issue the electricity connection but OP has flatly refused to issue the electricity connection in the house of the complainant despite completed all the formalities as required by the OP and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel or the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant applied for an electricity connection with the OP. As per report of District Town Planner, Karnal, the house of the complainant is situated in an unauthorized area and previously their office have demolished the roads and building etc. in the said colony, hence no permission has been granted to release connection in the said vicinity and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the complainant had applied for getting the electricity connection for her house but same was refused by the OP on the ground that the house of the complainant falls under the unauthorized area.

11.           It is not the case of the OP that OP has not issued the electricity connection to the other residents of the said colony. More than 200 houses are constructed in the said colony and this fact has not been denied by the OP. The fact that the house of the complainant falls under the vicinity of unapproved area has been denied by the complainant. However, if it is unapproved area, in that case also, no person can be deprived from the electricity facility being a basic amenity. In this regard, we relied upon the case titled as Dilip (Dead) through Lrs Versus Satish and others Criminal Appeal No.810/2022 (Supreme Court of India) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Electricity is a basic amenity of which person cannot be denied and Tamilnadu Electricity Board and others Versus Jayanthi Sundhar and another WA No.33 of 2015 (Madras High Court) (DB),  wherein Hon’ble Madras High Court, has held that Electricity connection to new building cannot be denied on the ground of deviation from sanctioned plan. It is further held that the electricity is a basic amenity same be granted without insisting upon completion certificate.

12.           Furthermore, in compliance of the order passed by this Commission, OP has issued a temporary electricity connection to the complainant and complainant is paying the electricity bills regularly.

13.           Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the complainant cannot be deprived for the electricity facility.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we dispose off the present complaint with the direction to OP to issue a permanent electricity connection to the complainant  till the action taken by the competent authority with regard to unauthorized area as alleged by the OP. The complainant is also liable to pay the electricity bills regularly as per the consumption. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 17.11.2023.                    

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member