DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB. 

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/351

Date of Institution : 15.05.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 20.06.2022

Gurmej Singh son of Sh. Jag Singh resident of Village Khairabad, Tehsil and District Amritsar.                …Complainant

Versus

1.SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, South Sub-Division, East Division Amritsar.

2.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, PSEB Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Authorized Signatory.  

                 …Opposite Parties

Complaint U/S 12 of The Consumer Protection Act

Present: Sh. Moris Tung Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Anil Sharma Adv counsel for the opposite party.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

 

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant Lakhwinder Singh  filed the present complaint under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Amritsar & Ors. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that in the year 2007 the complainant applied for a new tubewell connection with the opposite parties and had completed all the formalities and paid a sum of Rs. 1,100/- on 2.4.2007. The complainant remained contacting the concerned officers of opposite parties and had furnished all the formalities, however they remained dilly delaying the mater on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that in the year 2011 the complainant again deposited Rs. 2,031/- vide receipt dated 14.6.2011 with the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant had been regularly visiting the office of opposite parties for the issuance of new connection, but all in vain. It is further alleged that the complainant number of times visited the office of opposite parties for the issuance of above said new connection, but of no use. The above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

i) The opposite party may be directed to install new tubewell connection to the complainant.   

ii) To pay Rs. 100,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

iii) To pay Rs. 21,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, no cause of action etc. On merits, it is submitted that complainant deposited Rs. 1,100/- with the opposite parties. It is further submitted that according to circular No. 20/2018 we are providing Tubewell connection who has deposited fees till dated 1.1.1998 and whenever turn of the complainant will be come, tubewell connection will be issued to complainant according to rules and regulations of PSPCL. It is further submitted that the complainant deposited Rs. 2,031/- in another connection vide SP 68/115 and the same has no concern with the present tubewell connection. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.  

4. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of the bill Ex.C-1, copy of letter dated 4.1.2017 Ex.C-2, copy of letter/application Ex.C-3, copy of self declaration of Gurmej Singh Ex.C-4, copy of letter dated 4.1.2017 Ex.C-5, copy of the bill Ex.C-6, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-7, copy of the scheduled caste certificate Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence. 

5. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties at the time of filing written version also filed documents Ex.O.P1 to Ex.O.P5.   

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. 

7. It is alleged by the complainant that he applied for tubewell connection and completed all the formalities and deposited Rs. 1,100/- on 2.4.2007 with PSPCL Ex.C-7. Again in the year 2011 the complainant deposited Rs. 2,031/- vide receipt dated 14.6.2011 Ex.C-7. But till date his connection has not been released. 

8. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs. 1,100/- as security money for releasing of tubewell connection and Rs. 2,031/- as security money for SP connection. As per affidavit given by Sh. Ninderpal SDO Ex.O.P1 the complainant deposited Rs. 1,100/- as security for the tubewell connection in general category scheme with the opposite parties. According to the circular No. 20/2018 PSPCL is providing tubewell connection to those persons who have deposited security fees upto 1.1.1998. Whenever the turn of the complainant comes for release of tubewell connection it will be released to the complainant according to rules and regulations of PSPCL. 

9. On going through the record of file it is found that the connection applied by the complainant is in general category as per Ex.C-4 and it can not be released yet as per circular No. 20/2018 of PSPCL. PSPCL is providing tubewell connection to those persons who have deposited fees upto 1.1.1998 and the complainant had deposited the fees in April 2007. From the above discussion it is clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, so there is no  merit in the present complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        20th Day of June, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member