UTTARI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED vs HARI SINGH

-THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 18.1.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant direction has been given to the appellants-opposite parties to release the tubewell electricity connection of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the Tatkal Scheme within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.

THE facts as can be gathered from the record briefly stated are that the opposite parties had floated a scheme called "Self Finance Scheme" in the year 2001 and they had invited applications for release of tubewell connections immediately on payment of Rs. 30,000. THE complainant had applied to the opposite parties for release of the tubewell connection in December, 2000 and had deposited Rs. 300 on 29.12.2000 as security. THEreafter, the complainant under the aforesaid scheme deposited Rs. 15,000 on 30.6.2001 as per demand made by the opposite party No. 2 vide its letter dated 8.6.2001. THE balance amount of Rs. 15,000 was to be paid by him at the time of release of the connection. THE grievance of the complainant is that the connection was not released to him which was promised to be released to him by 31.7.2001. In the meanwhile the opposite party served him with a demand of Rs. 50,551 as per letter bearing Memo No. 27.7.2001 issued by the opposite party No. 2 as the said amount was outstanding against the name of his son Gurbax Singh @ Janga on account of theft of energy committed by him at the site where the electric connection was to be released. Aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint alleging that his son had been residing separately from him for the last 15 years and he had no concern whatsoever with him. Accordingly, it was prayed that the direction be issued to the opposite parties to release tubewell connection to him and to pay Rs. 2 lakh as compensation on account of loss of crop suffered by him during the period tubewell connection was not issued to him. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that after the application of the complainant for release of the tubewell connection under the "Tatkal Scheme" was received, Mr. Jaswant Singh official of the opposite parties had visited the spot in order to prepare the estimate but it was found that the son of the complainant was committing theft of the energy one year back on 26.4.2000 at that place where the connection was to be released for which FIR No. 70 dated 27.4.2000 was registered against him. Thereafter, a penalty amount was determined and imposed vide Memo No. 4952/CA dated 26.4.2000. Accordingly, it was prayed that as the penalty amount imposed upon his son had not been deposited, he was duly informed as per Memo No. 2079 dated 27.7.2001 and for that reason the connection applied could not be released to him. The District Forum on scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record accepted the complaint as per order dated 18.1.2002 and issued the directions noticed above. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-opposite parties. Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.

Admittedly, the opposite parties have not denied that the complainant had submitted the application for release of the tubewell connection after making security deposit of Rs. 300 on 29.12.2000 and Rs. 15,000 on 30.6.2001 under the "Tatkal Scheme" floated by them in December, 2000. It is also not disputed that the complainant was entitled to the release of the tubewell connection as he had fulfilled the entire conditions laid down under the scheme. Merely because at the place where the tubewell connection was to be released to the complainant, son of the complainant was found committing theft of energy when the official of the opposite parties had visited the site for the preparation of the estimate, would not be a justification for the opposite parties to force the recovery of Rs. 50,551 claimed as penalty payable by the son of the complainant. The definite case set up by the complainant is that he had no connection with his son for the last 15 years. Moreover, the opposite parties have not been able to adduce any evidence on record that his son Gurbax Singh @ Janga was indulging in the commission of theft of energy with the connivance of the complainant or in any other manner the complainant was a co-criminal with his son in respect of the Commission of theft of energy. Therefore, the District Forum was fully justified in rejecting the stand of the opposite parties and issued the directions in its order dated 18.1.2002. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is consequently dismissed. Appeal dismissed.