Haryana

Karnal

624/2011

Bhim Singh S/o Ram Parsad - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Surinder Saini

10 Nov 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint  No.624 of 2011

                                                           Date of Instt. 4.10.2011

                                                           Date of decision: 2.02.2015 

 

Bhim Singh son of Shri Ram Parsad r/o Dera Dharampuri village Sanjay Nagar tehsil Gharaunda district Karnal..

 

                                                                     ……..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1.UHBVNL through its M.D.Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula

 

2.UHBVNL through its SDO (OP)Gharaunda district Karnal.

                                                                   …..Opposite Party.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before      Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

.

 

Present:-  Sh.Surinder Singh  Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Raj Pal Singh Advocate for the OPs

 ORDER

                   

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the grounds that the complainant applied for tubewell connection under the Tatkal scheme with the OP no.2 for his agriculture land and paid Rs.20,000/- as a consent money on 7.5.2007 vide BA No. and APP No.53937 and Rs.21,000/- for three spans. It has been   alleged that four years have passed but the tubwell connection has not been released despite repeated requests which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency ins services on the part of the Ops and has prayed that the Ops be directed to release the tubwell connection to the complainant and has sought compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint.

 

2.                On notice the Ops appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint was not maintainable; that the complainant has got no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant was estopped  by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands.

 

                   On merits, factum of applying for tubwell connection under the Tatkal scheme and deposit of the amount as mentioned by the complainant has not been denied by the Ops. It was contended that  MCO No.92/553 dated 22.8.2007  was issued for issuance of the tubwell connection of the complainant but the complainant later on 3.8.08 moved an application   requesting to issue the tubewell connection later on.  Thus, it was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

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

4.       From the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops alleging deficiency in services on the allegations that complainant has sought the release of tubewell connection from the OPs. The said connection has been released to the complainant as per the turn of the complainant. There is nothing on the file in order to infer that the OP has violated the seniority list. Therefore, there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops regarding the releasing of the tubewell connection.

 

          However, the complainant has also moved an application alleging that the OP has charged a sum of Rs.21000/- as cost of three spans/poles but  no span/pole has been installed and as such he is entitled to get the said expenses refunded.  However, as per the reply filed by the Ops, it is evident that the complainant has deposited Rs.21000/- on account of estimated cost of three spans and only one span was installed by the OPs. The allegations that no span was used has been totally denied. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, the OPs are directed to refund the excess amount which is lying with the Ops regarding two spans subject to fulfilling all the formalities by the complainant. The present complaint is disposed off  accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

02.02.2015                                                                                                                                          

                                           (Subhash Goyal)

                                                  President,

                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                      Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

           (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                    ( Member

 

 

Present:-  Sh.Surinder Singh  Advocate for the complainant.

               Sh.Raj Pal Singh Advocate for the Ops

 

                 Arguments in part heard.  For remaining arguments, the case is  adjourned to 2.02.2015

 

Announced:

30.01.2015                                                                                                                                          

                                           (Subhash Goyal)

                                                  President,

                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                      Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

           (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                    ( Member

 

 

Present:-  Sh.Surinder Singh  Advocate for the complainant.

               Sh.Raj Pal Singh Advocate for the Ops

 

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

 

Announced:

02.02.2015                                                                                                                                          

                                           (Subhash Goyal)

                                                  President,

                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                      Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

           (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                    ( Member