Haryana

Karnal

147/2012

Tirlok Singh S/o Mehtab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Surender Kumar

25 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.147 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt. 9.03.2012

                                                               Date of decision: 28.08.2015

 

 

Tirlok Singh  son of Mehtab Singh resident of Dera Sambhli tehsil Nissing District Karnal.

                                                             ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN Ltd.Taraori tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 Present:       Sh.Surinder Kumar  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Pawan Kajal Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the averments that he had applied for installation of two tubewell connections  with the Opposite Party ( in short OP) vide applications No. 38868 and 38869 and deposited Rs.4000/- and Rs.3000/- respectively, vide   receipts No. 049078/275 and 049078/276.  The application No.38868 was for 12.5 BHP and application no.38869 was for 7.5 BHP load. He was assured by the OP that connections would be released as per seniority list prepared by the department. However, no action was taken by the OP for releasing the tubwell connections to him despite repeated visits and requests.  In this way, the  OP rendered deficiency in service, due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complainant has no locus standi; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint in view of Section 149 of the Indian Electricity Act.

 

                   On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant deposited requisite fee of Rs.4000/- and Rs.3000/- with the OP in respect of two electricity connections for tubwells. It has been submitted that OP  sent demand notices dated 10.8.2009 to the complainant asking him to submit test report , deposit earnest  money and  comply with the other terms  and conditions mentioned in the said letter. but he failed to do so, therefore, his applications were cancelled. Thus, there was no fault on the part of OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

 

3.                          In the evidence of the complainant, he filed his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6.

 

4.                          On the other hand, in the evidence of OP, affidavit of Sh.Devender Singh SDO Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O6 have been produced.

 

5.                          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                          There is no dispute between the parties that complainant applied for two electricity connections for tubewell and deposited the requisite fee on 17.6.2008, but the connections were not released to him. As per the case of the  OP, demand notices  were sent to the complainant on 10.8.2009 asking him to submit test

 reports, deposit  earnest money and comply with the terms and conditions mentioned in the demand notices, but he failed  to do so, therefore, his applications were cancelled.

 

7.                          The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant never received any demand notice or other letter from the OP, rather he  continued to visit the office of OP and requested the concerned officials to take steps for releasing his tubwell connections, but nothing was done and his applications were wrongly and illegally cancelled.

 

8.                The copies of the demand notices Ex.O2 and Ex.O3 indicate that said demand notices were issued to the complainant on 10.8.2009 in respect of his applications dated 17.6.2008. As per copies of the letters  dated 12.6.2010 Ex.O5 and Ex.O6, the complainant was informed that he had not complied with the demand notices, therefore, he was given 15 days time to deposit the consent money as  per Sales circular No. U-8/2010,  failing which his applications would be cancelled.

 

9.                The learned counsel for the OP brought the original  register regarding sending the aforesaid notices and letters to the complainant under Postal certificate and produced the Photostat copies of the relevant pages of the register, for  perusal. According to the Photostat copies of the relevant pages of the register, notices dated 10.8.2009 were sent to the complainant  under postal certificate and his name was mentioned at serial Nos.54 and 55. Memo numbers in respect of those demand  notices  as 2418 and 2419 were also mentioned in the register. Letters dated 17.6.2010 were also sent to the complainant under postal certificate  and his name was mentioned at Sr.Nos.1887–A and 1888. On copies of demand notices Ex.O2 and Ex.O3 memos No.2418 and  2419 were mentioned.  Thus,  is emphatically clear that demand notices were  issued to the complainant by the OP, under postal certificate on 10.8.2009 and when he did not comply with the said notices, letters dated 12.6.2010 were again sent to him under postal certificate on 17.6.2008. Addressee of the complainant was rightly mentioned in the register while  sending the demand notices. Therefore, a presumption is to be drawn that letters were duly delivered to the address . Under such circumstances, it cannot be said, in any manner, that OP had  not issued any demand notice to the complainant. In fact, the complainant did not comply with the said demand notices, therefore, there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do  not  find any merit in the present complaint. Consequently, the complaint is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file  be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:28.08.2015                                                                              

                                               

                                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

              

 

 (Anil Sharma)          (Smt.Shashi Sharma)        

     Member.            Member.

 

 

Present:        Sh.Surinder Kumar  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Pawan Kajal Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 28.6.2015.

                                               

                                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

Announced:                                         District Consumer Disputes

Dated: 26.08.2015                                 Redressal Forum, Karnal.

              

 

 (Anil Sharma)          (Smt.Shashi Sharma)        

     Member.            Member.

 

 

Present:        Sh.Surinder Kumar  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Pawan Kajal Advocate for OP.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

                   .

Announced
dated:28.08.2015                                                                              

                                                

                                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

 

 (Anil Sharma)          (Smt.Shashi Sharma)        

     Member.            Member