Haryana

Karnal

72/2013

Ramesh Kumar S/o Rati Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Satish Kamboj

19 Nov 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                             Complaint No.072 OF 2013

                                                           Date of Instt. 06.02.2013

                                                           Date of decision: 12.03.2015

 

 

Ramesh Kumar son of late Shri Rati Ram resident of village  Patehera tehsil Indri district Karnal.

                                                                     ……..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

 

1.Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Sub Urban Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Indri.

2.The Superintending Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Karnal.

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before       Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

Present:-  Sh.Satish Kamboj  Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.V.B.Mehta Advocate for the OPs.

 

 ORDER

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Ops alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops on the ground that the complainant applied for a tubewell connection with the Ops and completed all the formalities and deposited security amount with the OP No.1 vide receipt No.005411 Book No. 117 dated 5.8.2004. Thereafter the Ops framed a  Tatkal Scheme  for releasing the tubwell connections and in view of the said scheme, the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- with the Ops  vide receipt no.144408   receipt no.129 dated 11.8.2006 for obtaining the  connection.  The site was also inspected by the Ops. After waiting some time, the complainant also moved application dated 29.9.2011 but despite that the connection of the complainant has not been released which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed the present complaint and has prayed that the Ops be directed to release the tubwell connection to the complainant and  has also 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, copy of the legal notice Ex.C1 and some other documents.

 

2.                On notice the Ops appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has got no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint was not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain ands to try the present complaint and that the present complaint was an abuse of the process of law.

 

                   On merits,   deposit of amount of Rs.20,000/- was stated to be a matter of record but it was contended that vide notice  bearing Memo No.3669 dated 4.12.2006 following  by another reminder/Memo No.765 dated 31.8.20907, the complainant was asked to submit the test report of his connection  but the complainant failed to do so and as such the  tubewell connection of the complainant could not be released. It was thus 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.                Therefore, 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 had deposited  the requisite amount of  Rs.20,000/- with the Ops on 11.08.2006 vide receipt Ex.C10 but the complainant was not given  the said connection and the connection could not be released to the complainant as the file of the complainant was misplaced and thus on account of non giving of tubewell connection the complainant had suffered huge losses.

 

                             However, as per the contention of the Ops, the connection to the complainant could not be released  because the complainant had not completed the requisite formalities and the complainant vide notice dated 4.12.2006 was asked to submit test report of his connection but in vain and again  notice dated 31.8.2007 was sent to complete the formalities but in vain. The said notices have been mentioned in Ex.O3 and Ex.O5.

 5.                  Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is evident that the complainant himself is negligent in not complying with the Memos issued by the OPs to complete the requisite formalities. The complainant was also under an obligation to deposit the span charges in order to enable to the Ops to install the tubwell connection as per seniority list prepared by the OPs. Therefore, we hold that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs rather the complainant himself was at fault in not completing the formalities. But keeping in view the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the complainant had already deposited the amount of  Rs.20,000/- vide Ex.C10 dated 11.8.2006, we direct the Ops to release the tubwell connection of the complainant at the earliest after getting all the formalities completed including span charges  while taking it a special case. With these directions, the present complaint stands disposed off. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 12.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present:-      Sh.Satish Kamboj  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.V.B.Mehta Advocate for the OPs.

 

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

 

Announced
dated: 12.03.2015                                                                            

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.