Haryana

Karnal

CC/392/2022

Raj Dulari - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

V.K. Kapoor

13 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No. 392 of 2022

                                                      Date of instt.12.07.2022

                                                      Date of Decision 13.07.2022

 

Raj Dulari daughter of Shri Dhanpat resident of Ashoka Nursery, village Mangalpur, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. sub Division, Jundla through its SDO.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Party.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik….Member   

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present: Shri V.K. Kapoor, counsel for the complainant.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:      

 

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.             

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs) on the averments that complainant is having tubewell connection bearing no.AP33/1398Y in her name in village Padha, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, which was sanctioned to the complainant in the physically handicapped category by submitting her 100% disability certificate dated 01.06.2005 issued by Chief Medical Officer. The complainant is owner of agriculture land measuring 40K-18M situated in the above mentioned village. The abovesaid tubewell connection is in existence in the said land. Complainant is a physically handicapped, illiterate and unmarried lady, so her real sister namely Tarawati had an evil eye on the land of the complainant as well as tubewell connection. She had manipulated and fraudulently got the said land as well as tubewell connection transferred in her name by transfer deed no.3230/1 dated 24.07.2015 and also got transferred tubewell connection in her name fraudulently with the collusion of the OP. Coming to know this fact, complainant threatened her sister to lodge a criminal complaint and to escape the criminal action the sister of complainant had transferred the land in the name of complainant by dint of transfer deed no.903/1 dated 09.03.2021. However, the tubewell is still existed in her name. The complainant moved an application dated 18.04.2022 to the OP regarding the transfer of tubewell connection in her name, but OP refused to transfer the same in the name of complainant. It is averred that the abovesaid connection is issued on the medical certificate of the complainant being 100% disability and the said connection could not be transferred by the OP to any other person. The official of the OP without considering the category of the tubewell connection, without the knowledge of the complainant and colluded with the sister of the complainant got transfer the abovesaid connection in the name of her sister. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             Arguments on the point of admissibility heard.

3.             As per the version of the complainant, her elder sister namely Tarawati had manipulated and fraudulently got her hand as well as tubewell connection transferred in her name. The complainant threatened her sister to initiate the criminal proceeding against her, upon which, Tarawati got transfer all the land in the name of complainant but tubewell connection is still in her name. Complainant has put all the allegations against her sister but complainant failed to implead her sister as a party in the present complaint, which is very necessary party. No order can be passed at the back of the interested party. Moreover, if Tarawati had transferred the land in the name of complainant as alleged by the complainant, as to why she did not transfer the tubewell connection. Hence, present complaint is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission.  However, complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action, after impleading Tarawati as a party, before the competent court of law, if so desired. The party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:13.07.2022                                                             

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                           Member                          Member