| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.244 of 23-08-2017 Decided on 24-04-2019 Major Singh S/o Jarnail Singh R/o Allike, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala. 2.Addl. Superintending Engineer/Sr.Executive Engineer, DS Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Rampura Phul. (Deleted) 3.AEE/AE, Sub Urban, Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Rampura Phul. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Manisha, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.V.K Kaushal, Advocate. For opposite party Nos.1 & 3: Sh.J.P.S Brar, Advocate. Opposite party No.2: Deleted. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Major Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (In short PSPCL) releases electricity connections to the public. The policies are being issued for release of AP/Tubewell connections as per cut off date by PSPCL. Application and Agreement (A&A) Number are accepted after receiving the security amount from applicants and A & As are registered in the Sub Divisional Offices. It is alleged that A & A form of the complainant was accepted on 17.4.2007 by AEE/AE, DS Sub Urban, Sub Division, PSPCL, Rampura Phul after receiving security amount of Rs.1000/- vide receipt dated 17.4.2007 for releasing AP tubewell connection for 10 BHP. It is further alleged that as per policy issued by Chief Engineer/Commercial (Sales-I), PSPCL, Patiala of the year 2013-14 for release of AP/Tubewell Connections vide Commercial Circular No.30/13 dated 11.6.2013, cut off date for the applications was further extended vide Commercial Circular No.05/2014 vide memo No.129/133/SSM-414/Tubewell Policy 2013-14 dated 17.2.2014, to 31.12.2013 for the applicants having land holding upto 2.5 acres. Demand notice was required to be issued and connection was to be released to the complainant up to 30.6.2015 like other applicants of year 2007. The complainant was constrained to irrigate his crops by using diesel engine for the tubewell. It is also alleged that AP connection to Jagga Singh S/o Gurdev Singh R/o Village Pitho, who was junior to the complainant, having A&A No.31160, has already been released. The complainant made several requests to opposite parties to issue demand notice as per cut off date, but to no use. He is 'consumer' under 'Act'. Hence, this complaint has been filed with the prayer for directions to opposite parties to issue demand notice and release tubewell connection and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lakh on account of loss, harassment and mental agony and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. In view of statement suffered by learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No.2 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Opposite party Nos.1 and 3 appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In their joint written version, opposite party Nos.1 and 3 have raised the legal objections that the complainant cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs. He has failed to submit his option within stipulated period to get the connection on priority basis under 2.5 Acre Scheme. Opposite parties issued publication through various newspapers in January/February 2013 to the effect that who have applied for tubewell connection after 1.4.2007 and having land not more than 2.5 acres, priority should be given to them for release of proposed connections subject to their submitting/availing option up to 28.2.2013 and persons, who have land not more than 2.5 acres, should intimate their status of holding of land to the office of opposite parties and to submit their option regarding release of connection under the aforesaid scheme, as per time given in the publication i.e. up to 28.2.2013, but the complainant failed to intimate regarding his status of holding of land to opposite parties within stipulated period, so demand notice has not been issued to him nor connection has been released to him. He is estopped by his own act, conduct and acquiescence from filing this complaint. The complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file the complaint. He has not come with clean hands before this Forum. There is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade on the part of opposite parties and lastly, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. It be dismissed with special cost. On merits, it is admitted that the connections are being released to the respective consumers as per various different schemes of Corporation, which have been introduced by the Corporation from time to time. It is also admitted that the complainant applied for the connection and submitted A &A form and deposited application money of Rs.1000/-. In further written version, opposite party Nos.1 and 3 have reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, opposite party Nos.1 and 3 have prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavits, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C6); photocopies of circulars, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3); photocopy of payment receipt, (Ex.C4); photocopy of jamabandi, (Ex.C5); photocopy of his affidavit, (Ex.C7) and submitted written arguments on 8.5.2018 and 2.4.2019. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavits of Jassa Singh dated 18.1.2018 and 12.3.2018, (Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of public notice, (Ex.OP1/3); affidavit of Gurpreet Singh dated 19.12.2018, (Ex.OP1/4) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant after reiterating his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above, has further submitted that it is admitted that the complainant applied for electricity connection in the year 2007. Issuance of copy of circular No.30/13 is not disputed. Thereafter another circular No.5/14, (Ex.C2) was issued. As per this circular, connection to the complainant was to be released up to 30.6.2015, but no demand notice was issued to him whereas the applicants junior to him have already been released connections. Opposite party Nos.1 and 3 tried to justify their stand on the ground that the complainant has not submitted status of his land holding. The complainant has already submitted copy of jamabandi with opposite party Nos.1 and 3 at the time of submission of application. Therefore, opposite party Nos.1 and 3 were well aware about the status of land holding of the complainant. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the department has issued another circular No.54/16. Opposite party Nos.1 and 3 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurpreet Singh, (Ex.OP1/4) in additional evidence, but his averments in affidavit are not as per the factual position. As per opposite party Nos.1 and 3, the complainant has given option, but issue regarding demand notice was to be decided afterward. This averment is totally false and misleading. As per Para No.4 of circular No.54/16, process of issuance of demand notice was followed as per availability of material and pending test reports. Therefore, opposite party Nos.1 and 3 were also to issue demand notice as per circular No.54/16, but they had been putting off the matter on lame excuses. Moreover case of the complainant falls under circular No.05/14, 44/15 and not under 30/13. As such, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 3 stands proved. The complaint be accepted as prayed for. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 3 has submitted that that this Forum has to decide the complaint as per pleadings of the complainant. By this complaint, the complainant has claimed reliefs under circulars No.30/3 and 05/14. There is no reference of circular No.44/15 and 54/16. In order to avail benefits of circular No.30/13, the complainant was to comply with the requirements as per public notice, (Ex.OP1/3). Admittedly, he has not submitted his request for getting the connection on priority basis under this circular. He has furnished affidavit for benefits under circular No.54/16, but as per this circular also, issue regarding issuance of demand notice is to be decided by the office of CE/Commercial afterward. No further decision has been taken in the matter. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 3. The complainant will be released the connection as per policy decision taken by appropriate authorities in due course. There is nothing on record to prove that any applicant junior to the complainant has been issued the connection. Mere allegations cannot taken place of evidence. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Admitted facts are that the complainant applied for AP connection on 17.4.2007. Although, he has claimed benefits under circular No.30/13, but there is nothing on record to prove that he submitted his option as required under circular. Opposite party Nos.1 and 3 have also produced on record copy of public notice, (Ex.OP1/3) to prove that the applicants willing to take benefits under this circular were required to submit their request/undertaking. It is not case of the complainant that he submitted his request/ undertaking as required under this circular. Point for determination is whether the complainant is not entitled to any relief if he has not submitted his request/undertaking as required under circular No.30/13. Admittedly, opposite party Nos.1 and 3 have issued another circular No.54/16, which is in continuation to circulars No.22/16 and CC 44/15. From the affidavit of Gurpreet Singh, SDO, (Ex.OP1/4) also, it emerges that the complainant has submitted his claim under this circular on 5.12.2016. It is also not case of opposite party Nos.1 and 3 that the complainant is not eligible under circular No.54/16 also. Therefore, it is to be accepted that he has fulfilled the criteria required under circular No.54/16. As such, he is entitled for benefits under this circular. It is also mentioned in this circular in Paragraph No.3 (c) that issue regarding issuance of demand notice to the applicants, who have given the option/undertaking, is to be decided by O/O CE/Commercial afterward. It is case of opposite party Nos.1 and 3 that no policy decision has been taken so far regarding issuance of demand notice to those applicants. There is also no evidence by the complainant to prove that any policy decision has been taken in by the competent authority. Complainant can be entitled to demand notice only when policy decision is taken by the competent authority and if he is covered under that policy decision. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted against opposite party Nos.1 and 3. Opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are directed to issue demand notice to the complainant as and when he is covered under the policy decision taken as required under circular No.54/16. Keeping in view the peculiar facts, parties are left to bear their own costs. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 24-04-2019 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Manisha) Member
| |
