Haryana

Karnal

CC/273/2019

Pritam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gurdyal Singh Kadyan

23 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 273 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.17.05.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:23.05.2022

 

Pritam Singh son of Shri Hukam Singh, resident of village Dadupur, tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

2.     The Sub Divisional Officer (Operation), UHBVNL, Sub Division Jundla, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Gurdyal Singh, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Virender Sachdeva, counsel for OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is having agriculture land in village Dadupur, District Karnal, which falls under the jurisdiction of OP no.2. The complainant was facing a great difficulty to irrigate his land as there was no tubewell in the land of the complainant and there is no other source of water to irrigate his land. The complainant had done a tubewell in his land and for AP electric connection, vide application no.42989, dated 09.05.2014 with the office of OP no.2 and applied for sanction of load of 12.5 BHP deposit requisite fee and the application of the complainant was provisionally accepted subject to the verification of the site and installation and documents by Nigam. The complainant completed all the formalities and purchased the electric motor, starter and other equipments. A demand notice for tubewell connection was issued by the OP no.2 on 04.10.2014, vide memo no.1247 which was duly signed by the then SDO and asked the complainant to pay Rs.30,000/- and as per the direction of the OP no.1, complainant has deposited Rs.30000/-, vide receipt no.398/77376. The complainant got installed the equipments from approved A class electrical Inspector, Haryana Government, Chandigarh and installation report was issued and the complainant has deposited Rs.12500/- on account of installation charges. It is further averred that as per direction of the OP the complainant purchased a pump set of worth Rs.37,425/- on 05.11.2014 of 12.5 BHP, vide bill no.32 from M/s Jagdamba Submersible and Pipe Store, opposite power house Jundla and also a motor starter alongwith capacitor was purchased. After the completion of all the formalities, the complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- and Rs.1250/- on 18.11.2014 on account of installation with the OPs and then site was inspected by the AFM Amarnath and payment slip as well as site verification certificate and no dues certificate were issued to the complainant. The OPs assured the complainant that connection will be released shortly in favour of complainant. Thereafter, complainant continuously requested the OPs to release the tubewell connection but OPs failed to do so and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. On 19.03.2019, complainant was shocked to receive demand notice-cum-consent form vide memo no.3274 which was again sent by the OPs to the complainant and directed the complainant to deposit the abovesaid amount again and to purchase the pump set again and to install the underground pipeline as well as install Micro Irrigation system. The complainant moved an application before OP no.1 that the tubewell connection was intending for the use of fishery and there is no need to use micro irrigation system etc. The considerable time has already been elapsed, but till date the tubewell connection has not been released by the OPs malafide intention. It is further averred that OPs told to the complainant that in case complainant is in need of connection, the same by converted into Fishery Connection and connection can be released earlier and asked the complainant to move an application for the conversion of the connection in Fishery Connection. On the advice of the OPs, the complainant also moved an application for the conversion of the connection, but even then the OPs have not released the connection. Due to non-supply of electricity, the complainant could not irrigate his land and is suffering a huge loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant never came in the office of the OP no.2 for completing the formalities for getting installed his tubewell connection. It is further pleaded that OPs never refused to release the tubewell connection. The OP no.2 is still ready and willing to release the connection of the complainant if the complainant is ready to comply with the terms of the sale circular no.U-27/2019, which is the policy of the UHBVN for tubewell connection with five star energy efficient pump acts hence the complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that letter dated 19.03.2019 has been rightly and legally issued to the complainant and that has been issued as per the sale circular of the Nigam. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of consent form dated 19.03.2019 Ex.C1, copy of Will Ex.C2, copy of affidavit of Harvinder Ex.C3, copy of affidavit of Hukam Ex.C4, copy of MCG Ex.C5, copy of agreement Ex.C6, copy of affidavit of Ram Kumar Ex.C7, copy of affidavit of Bhim Ex.C8, copy of M.C.G. Ex.C9, copy of undertaking Ex.C10, copy of ration card of Pritam Ex.C11, copy of application Ex.C12, copy of application and agreement form Ex.C13, copy of bill of Jagdamba Submersible bill Ex.C14, copy of challans receipt Ex.C15, copy of installation test order Ex.C16, copy of demand notice dated 09.10.2014 Ex.C17, copy of test report Ex.C18, copy of payment mode with application Ex.C19, copy of consent form dated 09.05.2014 Ex.C20, copy of sizra Ex.C21, copy of Jamabandi Ex.C22, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C23, copy of death certificate of Hukam Singh Ex.C24 and closed the evidence on 29.10.2019 by suffering separate statement.

5.             Learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sarvesh S.D.O. Ex.OP1/A, copy of sale circular no.U-27/2019 Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP no.1 on 21.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had applied for a tubewell connection with the OPs. The complainant deposited all the requisite fee and also completed all the formalities. The complainant received a demand notice for tubewell connection from OPs on 04.10.2014, vide which asked the complainant to pay Rs.30,000/- and as per the direction of the OP no.1, complainant deposited the said amount and also deposited Rs.12500/- on account of installation charges. As per direction of the OPs the complainant purchased a pump and completed all the formalities, as per requirement of OPs but OPs failed to release the tubewell connection and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other.  He further argued that OPs told the complainant that in case complainant is in dire need of connection, the same by converted into Fishery Connection and connection can be released earlier and asked the complainant to move an application for the conversion of the connection in Fishery Connection. On the advice of the OPs, the complainant also moved an application for the conversion of the connection, but even then the OPs have not released the connection.  Due to non-supply of electricity, the complainant could not irrigate his land and is suffering a huge loss. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that OPs are still ready and willing to release the connection of the complainant if the complainant is ready to comply with the terms of the sale circular no.U-27/2019, and letter dated 19.03.2019 has been rightly and legally issued to the complainant as per the sale circular of the Nigam. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, complainant applied for tubewell connection with the OPs and deposited all the required amount.

10.           As per version of the OPs, complainant has not completed the formalities as sale circular no.U-27/2019 Ex.OP1 of the Nigam, so that the tubewell connection of the complainant has not released. The onus to prove his case, was lied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence that he has fulfilled the formalities and requirements of the OPs, as per abovesaid circular of the Nigam. Hence, at this stage, the present complaint of the complainant is premature and same deserves to be dismissed.

11.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we found the present complaint is premature and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to complete the formalities as per sale circular no.U-27/2019 and on completion of the formalities OPs are directed to release the tubewell connection of the complainant. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:23.05.2022

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                      Member                       Member