BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.125 of 2018.
Date of institution: 27.04.2018.
Date of decision:10.06.2019.
Dalip Singh, aged about 70 years, son of Sh. Chailu Ram, resident of Village Kurar, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- S.D.O. U.H.B.V.N.L. Kalayat, Operation Sub Division, Kalayat, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.
- Executive Engineer, ‘OP’, U.H.B.V.N. Limited Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal, District Kaithal.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. V.P.Kaindal, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Sawai Ram, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant applied for tubewell connection with the Ops and deposited the security amount of Rs.3850/- vide receipt No.1534 dt. 07.09.2016. Thereafter, the complainant as per direction of Ops deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 18.05.2017 with the Ops under the scheme known as “Tatkal Scheme”. The Ops further asked the complainant to deposit a further sum of Rs.95,493/- as expenses of electricity poles and the complainant deposited the said amount on 05.06.2017. It is further alleged that the complainant kept on visiting the office of Ops for the release of electric connection for his tubewell but the Ops put off the matter on one pretext or the other. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; time-barred; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the complainant applied for connection on 07.09.2016 and deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 18.05.2017. Thereafter, the Ops made the estimate of Rs.95,494/- and the Ops sent a notice/memo No.1099 on 27.05.2017 to the complainant to deposit the amount. Then, on 11.05.2018 the Ops installed the transformer through proper channel for giving the connection to the complainant but the complainant himself objected and stopped the Ops to give/install the connection over two polls only as pitched. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, it is stated that the Ops did not charge the amount of three polls from the complainant rather the Ops charged the amount of two polls and therefore, the Ops have installed two polls according to rules and regulations. The objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, Mark-CA to Mark-CC and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Undisputedly, the complainant applied for tubewell connection with the Ops and deposited the sum of Rs.3850/- vide receipt No.1534 dt. 07.09.2016 Ex.C2. It is also not disputed that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Ops vide receipt dt. 18.05.2017 Ex.C1. According to the complainant, the Ops further asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.95,493/- as expenses of electricity poles and the complainant deposited the said amount on 05.06.2017. The grievance of the complainant is that despite several visits, the Ops did not release the tubewell connection to the complainant. On the other hand, the Ops contended that on 11.05.2018 the Ops installed the transformer for giving the connection to the complainant but the complainant himself objected and stopped the Ops to give/install the connection over two polls.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the service connection order Annexure R2 from which it is clear that the Ops issued the service connection order of tubewell connection of complainant on 05.06.2017 and supply of tubewell connection was connected on 29.06.2018 i.e. after filing the present complaint. No doubt, the Ops have released the tubewell connection of the complainant during the pendency of present complaint but the said tubewell connection has been released on 29.06.2018 i.e. after more than the period of 1½ years because the complainant had applied for the tubewell connection on 07.09.2016. For the said act of Ops, the complainant has suffered undue harassment and he has to engage counsel and in such like circumstances, he is entitled for the compensation which is assessed as Rs.3,000/-.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.3,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:10.06.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
