Haryana

Karnal

CC/212/2015

Sultan Singh S/o Chamel Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Amit Kumar

12 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 212 of 2015

                                                    Date of instt. 10.9.2015

                                                     Date of decision 11.12.2017

 

Sultan Singh aged about 57 years son of Shri Chamel Singh resident of village Nali Khurd Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) UHBVN Ltd. Divisional Newal District Karnal.

                                                   

     ..…Opposite Party.

 

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh…….President.

                Ms. Veena Rani……….Member

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:  Shri Amit Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                Shri B.P. Singh Advocate for opposite party.

              

               

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments he is having a residential plot bearing no.64 situated in village Nali Khurd. In his plot a Pole of OP is in existence and a L.T. line is also crossing from the said plot. For removal of said pole and the LT line, on 30.7.2013 he moved an application to OP requesting therein that said pole and LT may please be removed from his plot and he is ready to bear entire shifting expenses. OP prepared a estimate for shifting of said LT pole and LT wire and after preparing the estimate the OP directed him to deposit an amount of Rs.11286/- as shifting charges. As per direction he deposited the said amount, vide BA no.287/77613 dated 29.8.2013. After receipt of said amount OP assured that the said pole and LT line will be shifted within one month but the same has not been shifted so far. He approached the OP for shifting the same a number of times but OP always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. On 14.5.2015 he moved an application of Managing Director, UHBVN Karnal for execution of the same work, but to no effect. 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 statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi and cause of action; maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that the litigation are going on regarding the land where the pole in question is situated and as such OP cannot remove said pole and wrote letter no.3055 dated 20.11.2015 which was sent to the applicant for giving his bank account number so that the estimate amount deposited by the complainant can deposit in his account but he has not given his account number to the OP. Hence there was 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.CW1 to Ex.CW7 and closed the evidence on 23.8.2016.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of  Narender Pal SDO Ex.OP1/A and document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 13.9.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that there is no dispute between the parties that the complainant has a residential plot no.64 situated in village Nali Khurd Tehsil and District Karnal and in the said plot, a pole of the OP alongwith LT line is in existence and the LT line is crossing over the said plot. It is also not disputed that the complainant moved an application on 3.7.2013 to the OP for the shifting of said pole and LT line and copy of the same is Ex.C-6. Thereupon the OP prepared a site plan copy of which is Ex.C-5 showing that the LT line was crossing over the plot of the complainant. The OP prepared an estimate for the shifting of the pole and the LT line to the tune of Rs.11,286/-, the copy of the same is Ex.C-4. There is no dispute that the complainant  deposited the said amount, vide receipt dated 29.8.2013 Ex.C-1.

7.             According to the complainant, inspite of the deposit of the expenses by the complainant for shifting of the pole and the LT line, but the OP has not shifted the same. Hence the OP is deficient.

8.             On the other hand, OP alleged that the OP has written a letter to the complainant dated 20.11.2015 that the pole in question is situated in a disputed property qua which litigation are going on and the complainant has deposited the estimated amount by concealing the said facts and due to the dispute, the pole and the line cannot remove and  the complainant can withdraw the amount deposited by him.

9.             The OP has tendered in their evidence only the affidavit and the letter dated 20.11.2015. The complainant has tendered into his evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of receipt for deposit of estimated amount of Rs.11,286/- as Ex.C-1, copy of form no.C.S.-16 as Ex.C2, another letter of UHBVNL Ex.C-3, copy of estimate Ex.C-4, copy of site plan prepared by OP is Ex.C-5, copy of application moved for shifting of the pole and the line Ex.C-6, photo copy of registered post letter Ex.C-7 and the copy of judgment dated 12.12.2013 passed by Sh. D.N.Bhardwaj,  Additional District Judge, Karnal in case Chamel Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat as Ex.C-8. The complainant moved the application dated 30.7.2013 stating therein that a pole has been fixed in his plot no.64 and  the wires from this pole are passing on said plot. The wires crossing upon his plot creates problem in the work. Due to the problem, the complainant is ready to pay the expenses for the shifting of the pole and line. Upon the application of the complainant the OP has prepared the site plan Ex.C-5 which clearly shows that the wires from the pole in question were crossing over the plot of the complainant. The OP prepared the estimate for shifting of the pole and the line to the tune of Rs.11,286/- vide Ex.C-4. The complainant has deposited the estimated cost of Rs.11,286/- for shifting of the pole and line in question. All these facts have not been denied by the OP. The ground taken by the OP that the pole in question is situated in disputed property qua which litigations are going on but the OP has not placed any such document vide which it can be proved that there was any dispute on the property where the pole in question is situated. From the site plan Ex.C-5 it is clear that the problem of the complainant can be removed if the lines/wires passing over the plot of the complainant are to be shifted from the plot of the complainant. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP has failed to prove on the file that there was any litigation regarding the property where the pole and line in question is situated. We are further of the view that the complainant has proved that the OP has already prepared the estimate for shifting of the pole and line and the complainant has deposited the said estimated amount but the OP has failed to shift the same. Hence the OP is deficient in providing services to the complainant.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to the above discussions, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to shift the line/wire passing over the plot of the complainant to other suitable place. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied within 30 days 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: 12.12.2017

                                                                  

                                                                  President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                Member