Haryana

StateCommission

A/7/2016

TRILOK SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

31 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       07 of 2016

Date of Institution:     04.01.2016

Date of Decision :      31.03.2016

 

Trilok Singh s/o Sh. Mehtab Singh, Resident of Dera Sambhli, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Tarori, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

Present:              Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate with complainant-Trilok Singh.

                             Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated August 28^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed.

2.      Trilok Singh-complainant (appellant herein) applied for electric connections of his tubewells vide applications No.38868 and 38869 dated June 17^th, 2008. He deposited Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,000/- vide receipts No.049078/275 and 049078/276 with Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-Opposite Party/respondent.  The UHBVNL issued Demand Notices dated August 10^th, 2009 (Exhibit O-2 and O-3) whereby the applications were provisionally accepted subject to the Nigam’s test of installation being satisfactory; deposit of Rs.20,000/- per connection (consent money) and other formalities. The complainant did not comply with the Demand Notices.  Again the UHBVNL wrote letters dated June 12^th, 2010 (Exhibit O-5 and O-6) asking the complainant to deposit Rs.20,000/- and submit the Test Report within 15 days and in case of non-compliance of the conditions laid down in the Demand Notices, the applications filed by him would be rejected. Inspite of that, the complainant neither paid the amount of Rs.20,000/- nor fulfilled the conditions. So, the applications were rejected.

3.      By filing the instant complaint, the complainant has pleaded that UHBVNL be directed to supply him the electric connections on the basis of the applications dated June 17^th, 2008.

4.      In the considered opinion of this Commission, the default was on the part of the complainant and not UHBVNL. In view of the facts stated above, it would not be appropriate to issue direction to the UHVBNL to release the electric connections to the complainant because inspite of the Demand Notices and Reminders, he failed to deposit Rs.20,000/- and comply with the other conditions. This being so, the order passed by the District Forum does not require interference.

5.      Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

 

 

Announced 31.03.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL