Haryana

Kaithal

CC/166/2022

Shamsher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Umesh Malik

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.166 of 2022.

                                                     Date of institution: 05.07.2022.

                                                     Date of decision:21.11.2022.

Shamsher Singh, age 60 years, son of Sh. Chandagi Ram, resident of Village Fariabad, Tehsil Rajound, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Uttar Hayana Bijli Vitran Nigam, office of Sub Divisional Officer, ‘OP’ Sub Division, Rajound.
2. Executive Engineer, Uttar Hayana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Kaithal.
3. Uttar Hayana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Umesh Malik, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Battan, Advocate for the respondents.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Shamsher Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owns and possesses agriculture land measuring 41 Kanal 16 Marla situated within the revenue estate of Village Fariabad, Tehsil Rajound and Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant applied for tubewell connection of 25 K.W. load with the respondent No.1 on 14.11.2007 by depositing a security amount of Rs.500/- and complied with all the formalities as required by the respondent No.1.  It is further alleged that the complainant made several requests to respondent No.1 but no action was taken and when complainant moved an application to higher authorities regarding this concern including respondent No.3, then complainant received a letter, wherein it has been mentioned that “As per CS No.6/2017 dt. 30.01.2017 tubewell connection could not be installed in the premises of complainant and the premises within which complainant is willing to get tubewell connection is under the Dark Zone.”  It is further alleged that Govt. of Haryana notified revenue estate of Village Fariabad as Dark Zone for a small period of time after moving the application before the respondents and lateron, Govt. rolled back the notification and lifted the tag of Dark Zone from the revenue estate of Village Fariabad, hence, the complainant approached the respondents again and requested them to provide the electricity connection for which formalities were already completed upon which respondents agreed and directed the complainant to submit an application with the subject, “request for revival of application of tubewell” in the name of respondent No.1 and complying this, complainant had submitted an application to respondent No.1 but still respondents did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that at the time of application, the complainant had been informed about depositing the consent money and other terms and conditions.  Till today the complainant has not complied with the formalities as required by the answering respondents for releasing the tubewell electricity connection.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C18 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondents tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Sh. Umesh Malik, Adv. for the complainant has argued that the complainant has filed the application for releasing of tubewell connection in the office of respondents on 14.11.2007 alongwith the fees of Rs.500/- prevailing at that time.  Lateron, he was told that his application was got misplaced by the respondents’ office.  Hence, tubewell connection was not issued to him.  Although as per R.T.I. filed by the complainant, it was informed to him that tubewell connection was given to one lady namely Saraswati on 02.03.2022 who had applied for the tubewell connection some days back.  He has stated that illegal gratification is demanded by the officials of respondents.  Hence, his application has been intentionally got misplaced by the officials of respondents because he did not pay the illegal gratification to the concerned officials of respondents.

7.             It is very sad state of affairs in the present time.  Respondents are directed to release the tubewell connection to the complainant immediately within two weeks from today.  Complainant shall deposit the requisite amount as per norms of the respondents.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly with heavy cost of Rs.20,000/- which shall be paid by the respondents to the complainant for extra-ordinary delay of 15 years caused by the respondents to the complainant.  Due to wait, complainant had to undergo the loss of mental pain and agony. 

8.         In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:21.11.2022.  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.