BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.45 of 2019.
Date of institution: 18.02.2019.
Date of decision:27.04.2022.
Dharampal aged about 52 years son of Sh. Baru Ram, r/o Ward No.9, near Post Office, Kalayat, District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- SDO ‘OP’ UHBVN, Kalayat.
- Secretary, UHBVN Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.
….Respondents.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM: DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Jagdeep Dhull, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Ram Naresh, Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Dharampal-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 applied for tubewell connection (AP) with the respondents in the year 1994 vide application No.1517 AP dt. 04.07.1994 and deposited the security amount alongwith other required documents with the respondents. The case of complainant is that he requested the respondents to release the AP (tubewell connection) to the complainant but the respondent No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that the respondents have released the tubewell connection to some other persons who had applied with the complainant and also violated the seniority of the complainant knowingly and intentionally. The complainant again visited the office of respondent No.1 and the complainant came to know that the security of complainant has been forfeited due to non-depositing the required amount demanded by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 never issued any demand notice to the complainant or his family members in respect of the above-said AP (tubewell connection) or forfeited of the security of the complainant. So, the complainant has suffered a mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss due to the above-said illegal act for non-releasing the AP (tubewell connection) and 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 statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; time-barred; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. On merits, it is submitted that the answering respondents are ready to allot the tubewell connection as per rules and instructions issued by the UHBVN if the complainant applied fresh tubewell connection. It is further submitted that the tubewell connection is being issued to the consumer as per rules and instructions issued by the UHBVN. The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 & Annexure-C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Jagbir Singh posted as LM/CC in UHBVN, Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and thereafter closed the evidence on behalf of respondents.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Sh. Jagdeep Dhull, Adv. for the complainant has stated that the complainant had applied for the tubewell electricity connection (AP) in the year 1994 vide document Annexure-C1. Vide application No.1517 dt. 04.07.1994, the complainant had deposited security/application fee of Rs.620/- to the respondents.
7. Sh. Ram Naresh, Adv. for the respondents has stated that vide Annexure-C1 the complainant had not made the compliance of demand notice, which is Annexure-R2. Sh. Ram Naresh, Adv. for the respondents with pains taking ability has stated that Annexure-C1 is the demand notice given to the complainant but the complainant had not made the compliance of the demand notice as he had not deposited the consent money as-well-as the estimate amount. Because of this reason, the tubewell connection was not given.
8. Sh. Jagdeep Dhull, Adv. also with his pains taking ability has stated that the complainant Dharam Pal is an illiterate villager/rustic person. Due to some inadvertence, he could not deposit the consent money as-well-as estimate amount while he has seniority with his tubewell connection since w.e.f. 1994. Hence, as per rules, he is directed to move a fresh application to the respondents for seeking AP tubewell connection which shall be given to him w.e.f. 1994 as competent authority-XEN is directed to give the directions regarding revival of his old application of the complainant of the year 1994. However, the complainant shall pay the latest price of the Electricity Board as stated by Sh. Ram Naresh, Adv. for the respondents. Dharam Pal-complainant is directed to deposit the consent money and estimate amount with latest rate of the respondents within one month from today. Consequently, the respondents shall install the tubewell connection of the complainant within one month after depositing the consent money, estimate amount and other charges. Hence, the present complaint is accepted with cost. Cost is assessed as Rs.11,000/- which will be paid by the respondents to the complainant.
9. In default of compliance of this order, proceedings 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.:27.04.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
