Haryana

Jind

EA/46/2015

Jagbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNNL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh R.S. Dalal

19 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 149 of 2014
                            Date of institution:-13.11.2014
                            Date of decision:- 18.8.2016
Ved Pal s/o Sh. Raghuvir Singh r/o village Pauli, Tehsil Julana, District Jind. 

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
SDO, (OP) S/Div. DHBVNL, Julana, Jind.
Suptt. Engineer Operation Circle, DHBVNL, Hansi road, Jind.
SDO (OP) S/Div. UHBVNL, Maham, Rohtak.
Suptt. Engineer, Operation Circle, UHBVNL, Delhi road, Rohtak.
                                 …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. Rajnish Garg Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. K.C. Gupta Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
            Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for opposite parties No.3&4.
            Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that complainant had applied for tube-well connection for agriculture land and deposited a sum of Rs.2,210/- on 9.4.2012 with the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 told to the complainant that his 
            Ved Pal Vs. DHBVNL etc.
                   …2…
connection will be released by the opposite party No.3 because the power house come under the jurisdiction of opposite party No.3 is nearest to the field of complainant. The opposite party No.1 also transferred the case to the opposite party No.3 and 4 for further proceedings. But the opposite parties No.3 and 4 returned the said file of the complainant to opposite party No.1 without taking any action. In the month of April, 2014 the complainant got informed by the opposite parties that the tube-well connection will be released by DHBVNL, Julana instead of UHBVNL, Maham due to the change of jurisdiction. It is pertinent to mention here that some other villagers having the electric connection from opposite party No.3 and the field of the said villagers are just adjacent with the field of complainant. The complainant moved an application for electric connection about 2½  years ago and now when the time of releasing the tube-well connection the opposite parties misguide the complainant and give unnecessary harassment. The railway line became in between the field of complainant and the power house of opposite party No.1 and the permission of the railway authority is also mandatory. The complainant is ready to deposit the remaining amount as per the circular. Due to non-release of tube-well connection he has suffered huge loss. 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 install the electric connection from  the nearest power house/transformer which is under the jurisdiction in the opposite party No.3. It is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- 
            Ved Pal Vs. DHBVNL etc.
                   …3…
on account of loss of   the diesel used by the complainant, a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant as well as to pay a sum  of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  
2.      Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties have appeared, the opposite party No.1 has filed the separate written statement but the opposite parties No.3 &4 have filed the joint written statement. Opposite party No.1 has contended in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and complaint is not maintainable in the present forum. On merits, it is contended that the opposite parties No.3 and 4 are competent and authorized to give electric connection to the field of complainant  is nearest to nearest of the power house of the opposite parties No.3 and 4.The DHBVNL, Julana is not competent to install the electric tube-well connection of the complainant as the railway line abuts in between the field of complainant  and the railway authority are not giving permission to install the tube-well connection to the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.  
3.    Opposite parties No.3 and 4 contended that no amount has been deposited by the complainant with the answering opposite parties. The answering opposite parties are not competent to give electricity connection to the fields of complainant as the area where the field of complainant is situated falls within the jurisdiction of DHBVNL, 
            Ved Pal Vs. DHBVNL etc.
                   …4…
Julana and not under the jurisdiction of UHBVNL, Maham, Rohtak. The DHBVNL and UHBVNL are two separate private limited company having their separate business and no link with each other and as such the opposite party No.3 is not competent to release the electric connection to the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  answering opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for. 
4.    Notice issued to opposite party No.2 received back served but none has come present on behalf of opposite party No.2. Hence, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 23.12.2014. 
5.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1,  copy of letter Ex. C-2, copy of receipt Ex. C-3, affidavit of Surat Singh Ex. C-4 and copy of electricity bill Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Surinder Singh Bhambu, SDO Ex. OP-1, copy of letter dated 13.1.2014 Ex. OP-2, copy of letter dated 10.2.2014 Ex. OP-3, copy of letter dated 18.2.2014 Ex. OP-4, copy of letter dated 19.3.2014 Ex. OP-5, copy of letter dated 4.4.2014 Ex. OP-6, copy of affidavit of Ved Pal Ex. OP-7, copy of rough sketch Ex. OP-8 and copy of letter dated 12.9.2014 Ex. OP-9 and closed the evidence. Opposite parties No.3 and 4 have produced the affidavit of Sh. Krishan Dalal, SDO Ex. OP-10  and closed the evidence. 
6.    We have heard the Ld. counsel of all the parties and perused the record placed on file. The Ld. counsel of complainant argued that the 
            Ved Pal Vs. DHBVNL etc.
                   …5…
complainant applied for electricity connection for his tube-well and deposited a sum of Rs.2210/- on dated 9.4.2012 with opposite party No.1 i.e. S.D.O. (OP) Sub Division, DHBVNL, Julana, District Jind. It was told to the complainant by the opposite party No.1 that the said connection will be provided by the opposite party No.3 and accordingly the case has been transferred to opposite parties No.3&4 for further proceedings. But till today the case of the tube-well connection is rolling from one office to the other. Due to non-release of the tube-well connection, the complainant has suffered huge loss and prayed for compensation and release of the connection from opposite party No.3. The Ld. counsel of the complainant further argued that there are a number of connections of the villagers of the complainant from the Meham jurisdiction Ex. C-4 and being the same department, the said connection should be provided from Meham from the shortest possible distance. 
7.    On the other hand, Ld. counsel of opposite party No.1 argued and mentioned in his written statement in para No.4 that the opposite party No.3 and 4 are fully competent and authorized to provide the said connection to the complainant. Moreover, the nearest to nearest feeder is in the jurisdiction of opposite party No.3 and 4 and accordingly they are duty bound to provide the said connection. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.3 and 4 argued that as per new policy, HSEB has been dissolved and UHBVN and DHBVN has been formed by the State Govt. and they have specific area for supply of electricity and they have no link with each other. 
            Ved Pal Vs. DHBVNL etc.
                   …6…
8.    After hearing Ld. counsel of all the parties and going through the record placed on file, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered a huge loss due to unnecessary act of the opposite parties by not issuing the tube-well connection. So there is great deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  We have no hesitation to allow the complaint and the same is allowed in the interest of justice. The opposite party No.3 is directed to release the tube-well connection of the complainant from the shortest possible route/distance within two months after receiving the departmental/installation charges if any, from the date of receiving certified copy of orders. We assessed Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 18.8.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

   

        Ved Pal Vs. DHBVNL etc.
                   
Present:-    Sh. Rajnish Garg Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. K.C. Gupta Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
            Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for opposite parties No.3&4.
            Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
            
        Arguments heard. To come up on 18.8.2016 for orders.

                                President,
            Member             Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 17.8.2016

Present:-    Sh. Rajnish Garg Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. K.C. Gupta Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
            Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for opposite parties No.3&4.
            Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
            
              Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint  is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
                                President,
            Member             Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 18.8.2016