The complainant Kamaljot Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that he is resident of Village Joganand, District Bathinda. The Complainant is small farmer as he is owner in possession of agricultural land holding below 2.5 Acres as per Jamabandi.
It is alleged that the Complainant applied for a motor connection/ tube-well connection of holding below to 2.5 Acres land for irregation of his agriculture land and deposited Rs.1050/- vide receipt no. 387 dated 27.02.2013 under General Category and also furnished requisite formalities for the same as required by the opposite parties. The opposite party also got the affidavit of complainant regarding ownership of land.
It is alleged that thereafter the Complainant has been visiting the office of the opposite parties from time to time and requesting the opposite parties to release the connection to the complainant and get the required charges for releasing the Tube-well connection but the opposite parties have been putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext.
It is alleged that the opposite parties are not giving the connection as per seniority list they are providing connection as per their sweet will with vested interest. The complainant who had also applied connection in year 2013 and deposited the requisite amount with opposite parties, has yet not been given any connection till date despite the repeated requests of the complainant. The opposite parties, illegally and against the rules and regulations of PSPCL and also by releasing the breaking the seniority, are connection to the influential persons who applied for connection much after to the application of the complainant and are not releasing any connection to the complainant, although a period of five years has already been lapsed since the date of application of the complainant for connection. The opposite parties released the tube-well connection to Samardeep Singh s/o Baldev Singh r/o Gobindpura whose A&A no is 49441 of 28-2- 2013, Gursewak Singh s/o Major Singh r/o Joganand whose A&A no is 49459 of dated 28-12-2013 by breaking the seniority list who had applied much after the complainant. The complainant wrote many letters to the opposite party. The photocopy of the letter dated 30-3- 2016 and 5-5-2016 and 15-9-2017 are attached for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Moreover, All these letters were duly incorporated in their diary register.
It is further alleged that Complainant is Consumer of opposite parties and opposite parties are deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practise causing mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and financial loss to complainant.
On back drop of these facts complainant prayed for following releifs:-
i) Opposite parties be directed to release the Tube-well connection immediately without any further delay after getting the further payment if any.
ii) Opposite parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/- to the complaint for his mental sufferings.
iii) Any other alternative and additional relief for which the complainant may be found entitled during the pendency of the complaint may also be given.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply raising legal objections that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint, The Complainant does not come within the purview of "consumer" as laid down by the construction, complicated questions of law and fact are involved in this case, which can only be decided by civil Court after elaborate oral as well as documentary evidence and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint.
On merits, the opposite parties admitted that complainant had applied for Tube-well AP connnection on 27.2.2013 under General Category and further pleaded that opposite parties vide its memo no.20/24 dated 08.01.2013 had invited option from applicants who has applied for AP connection with regard to 2.5 Acres of land and also with regard to 5 Acres of land. As per the above said memo, the applicants who had applied for AP connection and were owners of 2.5 Acres of land were required to give their option upto 25.1.2013 who had applied connection upto 31.12.2012. The above said Scheme was extended vide memo No.159/163/Tube-well Plan dated 19.1.2013 for the applicants who applied AP connection with regard to land measuring 1 to 2.5 Acres and with regard to 2.5 to 5 Acres of land upto 28.2.2013. The complainant had applied for Tube-well Connection on 27.2.2013, but he never submitted any option nor submitted any option/undertaking. The fact that the applicants were required to submit undertaking was widely published in different Newspapers. Even officials of PSPCL got above said information supplied to the villagers through Loudspeakers from Gurudwara Sahib and other modes. But inspite of publication of above said intimation through Loudspeaker from Gurudwara Sahib in the villages, the complainant did not submit above said mandatory undertaking. Because of default on the part of the complainant, demand notice was not issued to the complainant and that is why AP connection cannot be released in the name of complainant. A Circular No.44/5 dated 16.12.2016 had been issued by PSPCL to the effect that the applicants to whom demand notices had been issued by PSPCL under this category only shall be issued connection and no further demand notice shall be issued. As per circular No.14/2016 dated 15.3.2016 it was made clear by PSPCL that applicants who applied for AP connection from 1.4.2014 to 15.3.2016 shall only be considered for issuance of demand notice if option and undertaking is submitted by them. Since complainant had applied for Tube-well Connection on 27.2.2017, so he is not covered under the above said circulars and memos and that is why he was not entitled to release of Tube-well Connection denying other averments of complainant, opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complainant.
In support of his complaint, the complainant Kamaljot Singh has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 6-6-18 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of a Jamabandi for the year 2015-16 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-3), photocopy of letters (Ex. C-4&5), photocopy of affidavit of Kamaljot Singh (Ex. C-6), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-7), Affidavit of Kamaljot Singh dated 13.6.2018.
In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties have tendered into evidence Affidavit of Kamal Singla dated 10-8-2018 (Ex. OP-1/1) and photocopy of CC No.14/2016 (Ex.OP-1/2), photocopy of Memo no.159/163 dated 29.01.2013 (Ex.OP-1/3), photocopy of Memo no. 707/711 dated 16.12.2015 (Ex.OP-1/4), photocopy of Memo no. 20/24 dated 08.01.2013. (Ex. OP1/5).
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.
It is admitted fact that the complainant applied for Tube-well connection as per scheme of opposite parties for small farmers who are holding land upto 2.5 acres. It is further admitted fact that complainant deposited Rs.1050/- vide receipt no.387 dated 27.2.2013 under General Category.
The plea of the opposite parties is that opposite parties vide its memo no. 20/24 dated 08.01.2013 (Ex. OP1/5) had invited option from applicants who has applied for AP connection with regard to 2.5 Acres of land and also with regard to 5 Acres of land. As per the above said memo, the applicants who had applied for AP connection upto 31.12.2012 and were owners of 2.5 Acres of land were required to give their option upto 25.1.2013. The above said Scheme was extended vide memo No.159/163/Tube-well Plan dated 19.1.2013 (Ex. OP1/3) for the applicants who applied AP connection with regard to land measuring 1 to 2.5 Acres and with regard to 2.5 to 5 Acres of land upto 28.2.2013. The complainant had applied for Tube-well Connection on 27.2.2013, but he never submitted any option nor submitted any option/undertaking. The fact that the applicants were required to submit undertaking was widely published in different Newspapers. Even officials of PSPCL got above said information supplied to the villagers through Loudspeakers from Gurudwara Sahib and other modes. But inspite of publication of above said intimation through Loudspeaker from Gurudwara Sahib in the villages, the complainant did not submit above said mandatory undertaking. Because of default on the part of the complainant, demand notice was not issued to the complainant and that is why AP connection cannot be released in the name of complainant.
Opposite parties also place reliance upon circular No.44/5 dated 16.12.2016 (Ex.OP 1/4) which had been issued by opposite parties PSPCL to the effect that the applicants to whom demand notices had been issued by PSPCL under this category only shall be issued connection and no further demand notice shall be issued.
Opposite parties have also pleaded that as per circular No.14/2016 (Ex.OP 1/2) it was made clear by PSPCL that applicants who applied for AP connection from 1.4.2014 to 15.3.2016 shall only be considered for issuance of demand notice if option and undertaking is submitted by them. Since complainant had applied for Tube-well Connection on 27.2.2013, so he is not covered under the above said circulars and memos and that is why he was not entitled to release of Tube-well Connection
So far as plea of the opposite parties is concerned that option/undertaking was to be given upto 28.02.2013 by the applicants who applied Tube-well connection upto 31.12.2012 is not tenable as the complainant applied connection on 27.02.2013. So, It was duty of the opposite parties to take option/undertaking at the time when complainant applied for his connection. It is not the case of opposite parties that they asked complainant to give option and the complainant denied. So, complainant should not suffer due to self serving act and conduct of opposite parties. Moreover, opposite parties could not bring on file any evidence of publication or proclaimation if any made to make the General Public aware regarding submission of undertaking/application. Opposite parties should not be allowed to take benfits of their own wrongs and negligence.
The opposite parties have failed to produce on file any document to show that thereafter complainant was ever asked to complete the formalities, if any, required for release of Tube-well connection or the complainant has not complied with the same. The opposite parties failed to produce any rules/policy due to which Tube-well connection cannot be released to complainant. Rather documents placed on file by opposite parties show that Tube-well connection are not released only to the persons who applied for Tube- well connection between 1.1.2013 to 31.3.2014, though document of opposite parties (Ex. OP.1/3) makes it clear that undertaking was also to be taken even from new applicants who are going to apply upto extended date of 28.02.2013. The opposite parties on the one hand got applied motor connection under General Category upto 2.5 acres from complainant on 27.02.2013 and on the other hand, act and conduct of the opposite parties is altogether different. If connection is not being given by the opposite parties despite getting it applied under special scheme, then the salient features of scheme would loose significance and the purpose of said scheme will be frustrated.
This Commission is of the view that the complainant should not be left to wait for indefinite period. It is not the case of opposite parties that they had not released any connection thereafter Opposite parties have already got applied Tube-well connection from the complainant in the year 2013 and denying the release of the connection on hyper technical grounds and without any fault of complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to release the Tube-well electric connection to complainant.
It is made clear that the complainant will be liable to deposit the charges and complete the formalities, if any legally required.
The compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
