Balwan Singh Vs. UHBVN etc. Exe. No.45/2018.
Present: Shri Kuldeep Singh Dhull, Adv. for applicant/DH.
SDO S/U Sub-Divn No.1, UHBVN in person represented by
Shri J.P. Jaglan, Adv. for the JDs.
The above mentioned execution petition has been filed by the complainant/DH for the implementation of the order dt. 27.8.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Lok Adalat/ State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula. The extract part of said order dt. 27.8.2010 reads as under:-
“File taken up before the Lok Adalat.
Parties have compromised the matter. Their statements have been recorded separately which are reproduced as under:-
“Statement of Sh. Gobind Dhanda Advocate, counsel for the complainant Balwan Singh.
W.O.
Case put before the Lok Adalat.
On the instruction of my client Balwan Singh-complainant I have compromised with the appellant/opposite party. As per the terms of the compromise HVPN has agreed to release the tubewell connection on deposit of Rs.20000/- as per the sales circular No.77/2001 in favour of HVPN within one week from today. In case complainant Balwan Singh deposit this amount HVPN has agreed to release the tubewell connection in village Pathi Khot within a fortnight from the date of deposit of the said amount.”
“Statement of Sh. Ram Pal SDO Sub Urban, Sub Division-I, Kaithal.
On SA
I have heard the statement of Sh. Gobind Dhanda Advocate counsel for the complainant who has suffered statement before the Lok Adalat on the instruction of complainant Balwan Singh and admit the terms and conditions of the compromised disclosed in the statement. The Board is ready to release the tubewell connection to the complainant within fortnight from the date of deposit of Rs.20000/-. The present case may be disposed of in the Lok Adalat.
In view of the compromised arrived between the parties, both the parties are bound by the statement made today before the Lok Adalat. This appeal stands disposed of having being compromised.
27th August, 2010. Sd/-
Justice R.S. Madan
President.
Sd/-
Dr. Rekha Sharma
Member.
Sd/-
Diwan Singh Chauhan.
Member.
The opposite parties/JDs filed the objection that the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula disposed off two appeal bearing No.1905 of 2007 and 1906 of 2007 in Lok Adalat on 27.8.2010 on the statements of both parties, as per statement submitted before the Lok Adalat the agreed amount as per sale circular 77/2001 was to be deposited within one week from today i.e. 27.8.2010 and on depositing of such amount respondents was bound to release the connection within fortnight from the date of deposit of amount as per sale circular mentioned above. The JDs also taken the plea in the objections that real brother of DH after depositing the amount as per above said order, avail the electric connection after completing other required formalities from the JDs, but the DH neither deposited the amount as per order dt. 27.8.2010 nor submitted any application qua extension of time. Although compromise was effected between the parties on the issue of emergent need of electric connection of complainant, but complainant despite the passing of reasonable period did not approach the respondents/JDs and not deposited the required amount Rs.20,000/- as per compromise.
We have gone through the order dt. 27.8.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Lok Adalat/ State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula. As per that order, the complainant/DH was bound to deposit Rs.20,000/- as per sales circular No.7/2001 in favour of HVPN within one week from the date of that order. So, the DH was legally bound to comply with his statement recorded before the Hon’ble State Commission in a zeal and spirit manner and he cannot back out from the same. But the DH did not comply with his statement and as he had not deposited Rs.20,000/- with the JDs department, rather the DH filed the present execution petition after period of 8 years. So, the DH cannot take benefit for his own wrong. The consent order has been passed by the Hon’ble State Commission on 27.8.2010 and as per settled law, this Forum has no jurisdiction to review or modify the consent order passed by any Forum/Court.
On 06.3.2019, the SDO S/U S/Divn No.1, UHBVN appeared in person and placed on the file copy of new Sales Circular No.U-25/2013 which is amended in the year 2013 and its Clause 5 (c) is relevant, which reads as under:-
5. The additional Guidelines for the consumers covered under Sr. No.3 & 4.
c) Single connection per transformer where the consumer meets the full cost of release of the connection i.e., full amount of estimate sanctioned for release of that particular AP connection.
So, in these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the execution petition is not maintainable. Consequently, the present execution petition/application u/s 27 of C.P. Act is hereby dismissed on the merit as well as non maintainable. However, it is made clear that if the DH wants to take the electricity connection for his land, then he shall be at liberty to obtain the connection as per Sales Circular No.U-25/2013 ‘produced by the JDs today before this Forum, and as per provisions of Electricity Act. Papers be tagged with the main case file and be consigned to record, after due compliance.
Dt.12.3.2019. Member. Member. President.
