Haryana

Karnal

CC/103/2018

Niraj Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

V.B. Mehta

07 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No.103 of 2018

                                                         Date of instt. 03.05.2018

                                                         Date of decision:07.02.2019

Niraj Malhotra son of Shri Harish resident of village Matak Majri Tehsil Indri District Karnal at present resident of Johar Majra Tehsil Indri.

                                                                           …….Complainant

                                        Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its SDO(OP) Sub Division Indri Tehsil Indri District Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

       

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik………Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present:  Shri V.B.Mehta Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Amit Munjal Advocate for OP.

                               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is the owner of a shop situated in Matak Majri Tehsil Indri District Karnal, vide transfer deed no.3897/1 dated 13.03.2015. Complainant applied for a NDS connection with the OP, vide application no.56191. OP got deposited an amount of Rs.5400/-, vide BA-16 no.395/114631 dated 09.02.2018. After the receipt of the said amount, OP assured that the connection of the complainant would be released within a period of 15-20 days but the same was not released by OP. The complainant visited the office of OP so many times and requested to release his connection but OP always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant received a letter dated NIL vide which the OP stated that the connection to the premises of the applicant cannot be released as it falls in the unauthorized area as per sales circular no.U-52/2017. Said letter is quite illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the complainant because supply of electricity connection to the premises is the basic amenity for everyone and the OP cannot refused to provide the said basic amenity to the complainant. As per provision of section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 the OP is bound to release the new regular connection within a stipulated period of one month after receiving the application from the applicant but in the present case the OP even did not receive the application form from the applicant, though the applicant completed all the formalities. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the premises in which the complainant wants to take electricity connection is situated in unauthorized area in which OP cannot release the connection as per the letter bearing memo no.Ch12/TR-99(90) Slum Colony/Loose CGMC-1 dated 11.08.2015 issued by Chief General Manager of UHBVN, Panchkula but the OP can only release the connection to the applicant, if the applicant is ready to comply with the terms and conditions of the sales circular no.U-32/2017, which has been issued by the Nigam only for electricity connections in un-authorized connections/slums. The applicant was advised to comply with the terms of the said sales circular of the Nigam but he did not bothered for same and filed this false and baseless suit, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 26.09.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Kumar SDO Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 7.1.2019.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that he is owner of a shop situated on Matakmajri, tehsil Indri, District Karnal, vide release deed no.3897/1 dated 13.03.2015. The complainant has applied for a NDS connection in the office of OP on 09.02.2018 and deposited an amount of Rs.5400/- in this regard. The OP assured the complainant that the connection would be released within 15-20 days. But OP did not release the connection on the ground that the shop in question falls in an unauthorized area. The neighbours of the complainant already have the connections given by OP in the same locality but the OP did not release the NDS connection without any cogent reason.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the site in question falls in unauthorized area, the OP cannot release the connection as per letter bearing memo no.CH12/TR-99 (90) slum colony/loose/CGMC-1 dated 11.08.2015, issued by Chief Manager of UHBVNL Panchkula. The OP can only release the connections to the applicant, if the applicant is ready to comply with the terms and conditions of the sales circular no.U32/2017, which has been issued by the Nigam only for electricity connection in the unauthorized area/slums. The complainant was advised to comply with the terms of the said circular of the Nigam but he did not bother for the same.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant had applied for a NDS connection and deposited an amount of Rs.5400/-. The OP did not release the connection of the complainant on the ground that the site in question falls in the unauthorized area and as per letter bearing memo no.CH12/TR-99(90) slum colony/loose/CGMC-1 dated 11.08.2015, issued by Chief Manager of UHBVN Panchkula, the connection cannot be released in the unauthorized area.

9.             The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant become owner of the site in question vide release deed (Ex.C3). He further argued that all the neighbours of the complainant already have the NDS connections issued by the OP. In this regard he produced the electricity bill of Satinder Pal, Asha Rani and Deepika Katyal (Ex.C4) and photocopy of affidavit of Kashmiri Lal neighbours of the complainant.

10.           The site in question was transferred from Pankaj Malhotra vide release deed (Ex.C3). If the site in questions falls in unauthorized area, then release deed could not be executed by the concerned Tehsildar. And why OP has accepted the amount of Rs.5400/- for the NDS connection from the complainant. Moreover, OP did not refund the said amount to the complainant till date. Thus, we are of the considered view that the site in question falls in authorized area and the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.

11.           In view of the above observation, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to release the NDS connection of the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 07.02.2019

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                        Member                       Member