BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.199/16.
Date of instt.: 11.07.2016.
Date of Decision: 02.03.2017.
Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Saroop r/o Village and Post Office Siwan, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- S.D.O., ‘OP’ Sub Division Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Secretary, O/o Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. M.K.Nirwani, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Karan Gaur, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he applied for electricity connection of 35 BHP load and deposited Rs.3375/- with the Ops vide receipt No.395 dt. 01.01.2015. It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops several times to issue the electricity connection but the Ops did not release the electricity connection to the complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, it is submitted that the application dt. 01.01.2015 submitted by the complainant is still in queue for awaiting issuance of demand notice because as per the instructions contained in sales circular No.U-16/2015, the demand notice can be issued to the applicants, who have applied for tubewell connection till 31.12.2013 only. The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1 and closed evidence on 25.11.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed evidence on 11.01.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant applied for electricity connection of 35 BHP load and deposited Rs.3375/- with the Ops vide receipt No.395 dt. 01.01.2015. He further argued that the complainant requested the Ops several times to issue the electricity connection but the Ops did not release the electricity connection to the complainant. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the application dt. 01.01.2015 submitted by the complainant is still in queue for awaiting issuance of demand notice. He further argued that as per the instructions contained in sales circular No.U-16/2015 dt.10.06.2015, the demand notices were issued upto 31.12.2012 and as per sales circular No.U-16/2016 dt. 22.04.2016, the demand notices were issued in respect of applicants, who have applied for tubewell connection upto 31.12.2013 only. He further argued that the latest sales circular No.U-06/2017 dt. 30.01.2017 was also issued. According to this latest sales circular, it has been observed that a large number of tubewell connections have been released in the notified area and the area of the complainant i.e. Guhla block of Kaithal District falls in the notified area. So, it is brought to the notice of all concerned that as per Central Ground Water Authroity guidelines/criteria for evaluation of proposals/requests for ground water abstraction in the Notified Areas, permission to abstract ground water through any energized means will not be accorded for any purpose other than drinking water. He further argued that the case of complainant is pre-mature.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is crystal clear that the complainant applied for electricity connection of 35 BHP load and deposited Rs.3375/- with the Ops vide receipt No.395 dt. 01.01.2015. As per Ops, the application dt. 01.01.2015 submitted by the complainant is still in queue for awaiting issuance of demand notices because as per the instructions contained in sales circular No.U-16/2016, the demand notices can be issued to the applicants, who have applied for tubewell connection till 31.12.2013 only. From the sales circular No.U-16/2016, dt. 22.04.2016, it is clear that the directions have been issued by the department regarding issuance of demand notices in respect of applicants, who have applied for tubewell connection upto 31.12.2013. As already stated above, the complainant has only applied for his tubewell connection on 01.01.2015. Keeping in view the above-said sales circular and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the present complaint of the complainant is pre-mature. The complainant has failed to prove on the file any deficiency on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint being pre-mature. No order as to costs. 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.
Dt.02.03.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
