LAWS(NCD)-2015-2-56

S D O , UHBVNL Vs. BHAGWAN SINGH

Decided On February 27, 2015
S D O , Uhbvnl Appellant
V/S
BHAGWAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, by the Petitioner, calls in question the correctness and legality of order dated 3.9.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1085 of 2011 S.D.O. Sub-Urban vs. Bhagwan Singh. By the said order, the State Commission dismissed the First Appeal in limini.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the main complaint before the District Forum are that the complainant applied for a tube-well connection and deposited the security amount of Rs. 3,750/- on 16.12.2006, Rs. 20,000/- on 19.12.2007 and Rs. 7,000/- on 6.5.2008 and was assured by the Opposite Party that the tube- well connection will be given to him from the main line which is passing from his field. Thereafter, on 9.6.2010, after a gap of two years OP demanded a sum of Rs. 93,000/-, aggrieved by which the complainant issued a Legal Notice on 10.7.2010. As the complainant did not deposit the remaining amount, the tube-well connection was not released to him and it is the case of the Opposite Party that under bifurcation scheme of the Nigam the domestic supply was bifurcated from the A.P. supply and both lines were separated and that 16 pillars have now to be installed. The District Forum observed that the tube-well connection ought to have been released within a reasonable period of time of one to three months from issue of demand notice and held the Opposite Party deficient in his services and allowed the complaint directing Opposite Party to release the electricity tube-well connection failing which the total deposit amount would be refunded with 9% interest.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party preferred Appeal No. 1085 of 2011 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana which, dismissed the First Appeal in limini and the Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition on the ground that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the cost of raising of the poles is to be borne by the Petitioner, herein and therefore, demand of Rs. 93,000/- has been made as 16 spans (pillars) are required to be installed.