BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.72 of 2019.
Date of institution: 13.03.2019.
Date of decision:07.01.2020.
Ram Mehar, age 48 years, son of Sh. Phull Chand, Caste Pandit, R/o Village Sirsal, Tehsil Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- SDO, ‘OP’, Sub Division No.2, UHBVN Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its C.M.D. O/o Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Ashwani Kanyan, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Karan Gaur, 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 a tubewell electric connection with the Ops and accordingly, he deposited the amount of Rs.1500/- vide BA16 No.19/095220 dt. 29.12.2008. It is alleged that the Ops served a demand notice upon the complainant vide which they demanded the amount of Rs.32,300/- and the said amount was deposited by the complainant vide receipt No.257 dt. 14.05.2018. The Ops did not release the tubewell connection to the complainant inspite of several requests and ultimately, they refused to issue the electric tubewell connection in favour of the complainant vide memo No.2009 dt. 21.12.2018 by saying that the land of complainant is joint with Roshan Lal S/o Ram Chander and said Roshan Lal has served a legal notice upon the Ops. 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 that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that initially the complainant applied for tubewell connection vide application bearing No.18254 dt. 29.12.2008. The said application was duly processed by the office of answering Op No.1 and demand notice bearing No.9504 dt. 01.10.2010 was issued in the name of complainant requiring him to deposit required amount for release of tubewell connection but the complainant did not deposit required amount with the Nigam within stipulated time and as such, the aforesaid demand notice was cancelled. But thereafter again, as per instructions of Nigam, aforesaid demand notice dt. 01.10.2010 was revived and the applicant, accordingly deposited the amount of Rs.32,300/- as consent money for revival of aforesaid notice. It is pertinent to mention here that the fields where the complainant intends to get install tubewell connection, is joint land of several persons including complainant. One of above-said co-owner namely Sh. Roshan Lal S/o Ram Chander also served legal notice dt. 24.05.2018 through his counsel upon the Op No.1 and intimated that the partition proceedings regarding the agriculture land where complainant intends to get install tubewell connection is already pending before Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Pundri and said proceedings are likely to be concluded very soon. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, 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 Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C11 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-R6 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 a tubewell electric connection with the Ops and accordingly, he deposited the amount of Rs.1500/- vide BA16 No.19/095220 dt. 29.12.2008. According to the complainant, the Ops served a demand notice upon the complainant vide which they demanded the amount of Rs.32,300/- and the said amount was deposited by the complainant vide receipt No.257 dt. 14.05.2018. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops did not release the tubewell connection to the complainant inspite of several requests and ultimately, they refused to issue the electric tubewell connection in favour of the complainant vide memo No.2009 dt. 21.12.2018 by saying that the land of complainant is joint with Roshan Lal S/o Ram Chander and said Roshan Lal has served a legal notice upon the Ops. Ld. Counsel for the Ops stated that the Ops are ready to give the electric tubewell connection subject to partition from the competent court because the joint owner Mr. Roshan Lal has sent the notice to the Op No.1. This Forum has appointed the local commissioner namely Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Adv. to sought out the controversy between the parties and he submitted the report that in khewat No.279 which was identified by the complainant and other persons, there were four tubewell electricity connection in khewat No.279. The complainant also wants to install the connection in the same khewat as per notice given to the Op No.1 by the complainant alleging that he is owner in possession of 30 kanal 11 marlas agriculture land comprised in khewat No.279 as discussed above. The only dispute between the parties is regarding that the Ops cannot issue the connection because the land in question is joint one. We have perused the inspection report given by the local commissioner. There are already four connections in the same khewat. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant is also owner of the same khewat as per the record available on the file and the same is not denied by the Ops. So, the complainant is also entitled for the relief of electricity tubewell connection in the same khewat with some conditions mentioned below. Hence, we direct the Ops to release the electricity tubewell connection to the complainant in the land which is in possession of the complainant exclusively within 30 days after submitting the affidavit by the complainant to this effect that he will give the jamabandi as-well-as khasra giradawari where he wants to install the connection. He will also give the affidavit that if the land falls under the share of other co-sharers, then he will remove/transfer the electricity tubewell connection without claiming any compensation from other co-sharers or the Ops also.
7. With these directions, the present complaint is partly allowed. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:07.01.2020.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
