CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER OP UHBVNL vs KABOOL SINGH

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 30 May 2007 · Citation: 2007 4 CPJ 22

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.C.Gupta , MajGenS.P.Kapoor , Devinderjit Dhatt J.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 359 words
1.

THIS appeal has been directed by the opposite party against order dated 28. 3. 2001 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- Kurukshetra (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) whereby the complaint of Kabool Singh, respondent (complainant) was accepted and the appellant was directed to release connection to the tubewell of respondent in accordance with seniority list without skipping over his name representing his father Ram Saran who had died.

2.

THERE is no dispute about it that Sh. Ram Saran, father of respondent had applied for tubewell connection having load of 7. 5 BHP vide application No. 21198 dated 20. 8. 1987 with Sub-Divisional Officer (Operation), Dhand, District Kaithal. The test report was submitted in view of demand notice No. 1261 dated 1. 9. 1989. The appellant had issued SCO No. 56/7300 on 8. 7. 91. It was assured on the part of appellant that connection would be released soon and even poles were also placed for installation. But they did not release the connection and demanded gratification of Rs. 1,000 which Kabool Singh did not pay. It was admitted by the appellant that Ram Saran, father of respondent had applied for connection and stated that the test report which was submitted by Ram Saran failed and new test report was submitted by the respondent on 21. 12. 1999 and the application for connection was made only on 10. 8. 1999 and the same was sent to Pehowa sub-division. Certainly the plea taken by the appellant is illegal. If the first test report submitted by respondent had failed, then he had subsequently submitted second test report but his seniority will be counted from the date when his father had made application on 20. 8. 1987 because no intimation was sent to respondent regarding failure of first test report. Therefore, order has been rightly made by the District Consumer Forum keeping his seniority intact from 1987.

We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal and consequently, it is dismissed.

3.

COPIES of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.