| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 338 of 10-12-2018 Decided on : 2-12-2021 Malkeet Singh aged 62 years S/o Sh. Sardara Singh R/o Vill. Machhana, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sangat, District Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate For opposite parties : Sh. J D Nayyar, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Malkeet 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 Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is permanent resident of village Machhana and is an agriculturist. He applied for tube well connection on 02-04-2007 vide receipt No. 348 book No.87131. The complainant fulfilled requisite formalities as required by the opposite parties. The opposite parties also got the affidavit of complainant regarding ownership of land. Later on it came into 2.1/2 acre scheme. It is alleged that the complainant kept on visiting the office of the opposite parties from time to time and requesting them to release the connection to the complainant and get the required charges for releasing the tubewell connection but the opposite parties have been putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext. Ultimately the opposite parties issued a letter No. 2046 dated 04-04-2016 vide which it was intimated that there is another outstanding amount towards complainant. The complainant met the opposite parties and got the information. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant received memo No. 4384 of dated 16-12-2014. The complainant filed letter on 19-07-2016 which was received on the same day by the opposite parties vide diary dispatch No. 57 of 19-07-2016 in which the complainant informed the opposite parties that he has challenged memo No. 4384 before SDM by way of appeal and till then no decision is to be taken for releasing the new connection. It is alleged that complainant filed an appeal against the memo No. 4384 dated 16-12-2014 of Rs. 1,10,207/- and appeal was accepted by SDM on 18-01-2018 in favour of complainant and memo No. 4384 was quashed by Ld court of SDM. The opposite parties vide memo No. 791 dated 09-05-2018 refunded the amount to the complainant which was deposited at the time of filing the appeal. It is further alleged that the complainant met many times to the opposite parties and requested them to release the connection, but they did not respond the request of the complainant. The opposite parties are not releasing connection as per seniority list and providing connections as per their sweet will with vested interest. The complainant had applied for connection in year 2007 and deposited the requisite amount with opposite parties, but connection has not yet been given to complainant despite his repeated requests. The opposite parties, illegally and against the rules and regulations of PSPCL, and also by breaking the seniority, are releasing the connection to the influential persons who applied for connection much after to the application of the complainant. The opposite parties have not released connection to the complainant, although a period of eleven years has already been lapsed since the date of application of the complainant. The complainant alleged that due to above said illegal act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and also suffering financial losses as the complainant is unable to irrigate his fields due to non release of the aforesaid tube-well connection by the opposite parties, for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to release of tube well connection immediately and pay him Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation in addition to any other alternative and additional relief. Upon notice the opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite parties raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant does not have any cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material fact; that this Commission does not have jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; that the compliment has filed this false and fictitious complaint; that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for; that the complainant is not consumer as define under the 'Act' and that the matter in dispute is not covered under the definition of service. The opposite parties have pleaded that the case of the complainant could not be considered for issuance of demand notice, since there had been an outstanding amount against him for which he had already been issued a memo No. 4384 dated 6-12-2014 mentioning the details and the reason for the said demand. The complainant ignored the same and kept silent about it and as such the connection against the said demand had been raised was disconnected by the opposite parties. Since, the complainant failed to make the payment of the amount demanded from him within the stipulated period, as such the demand notice with regard to the present connection could not be issued to him for the reason of there being an outstanding amount against him. The complainant had been issued a memo No. 2046 dated 04-04-2016 mentioning therein that there was an outstanding amount against the complainant which he was required to pay. The complainant challenges the said amount in the Ld court of SDM wherein the matter was decided in favour of the complainant. Accordingly, his electricity connection which had been disconnected as against the demand raised vide memo No. 2046 dated 04-04-2016 was restored. It is further pleaded that the said scheme under which the complainant has applied the present electricity connection had been closed and thereafter a ban had been put upon issuance of demand notices. By the time the case of the complainant had been decided by the Ld court of SDM, there came up a ban upon the issuance of the demand notices and as such the opposite parties are unable to issue any such demand notice to the complainant and hence, the connection could not be released to the complainant. On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their version as pleaded in legal objections and detailed above. It is further pleaded that the said scheme under which the complainant has applied the present electricity connection, has been closed and thereafter a ban had been put upon issuance of demand notices. By the time the case of the complainant had been decided by the Ld court of SDM, there came up a ban upon the issuance of the demand notices and as such the opposite parties are unable to issue any such demand notice to the complainant and hence, the connection could not be released to the complainant. The complainant had been duly informed regarding the same as and when he approached the office of the opposite parties. The electricity connection could not be released to the complainant since by the time the matter with regard to previous payment was resolved, there came up a ban upon the issuance of the demand notice and the opposite parties were bound by the same and as such the demand notice could not be issued to the complainant. After controverting all other averments, the opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence photocopy of letter (Ex.C-1), photocopy of memo (Ex.C-2), photocopy of letter (Ex.C-3), photocopy of order (Ex.C-4), photo copy of letter (Ex.C-5), affidavit of Malkeet Singh dated 08-12-2018 (Ex.C-6). The complainant also tendered photocopy of letter dated 18-4-2019 (Ex. C-7) in additional evidence. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Iqbal Singh dated 01-02-2019 ( Ex.OP1/1), photocopy of memo dated 22-11-2018 ( Ex.OP1/2) photocopy of CC No. 54/2016 Ex.OP1/3), photocopy of memo No. 4384 dated 16-12-2014 (Ex.OP1/4) and closed evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. These are admitted facts of the parties that complainant applied for Tubewell connection 02-04-2007 vide receipt No. 348 book No.87131. The opposite parties raised demand of Rs. 1,10,207/- vide memo No. 4384 dated 16-12-2014 (Ex. C-2), which was challenged by the complainant before the Ld.Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda. The appeal was decided in favour of the complainant vide order 18-1-2018 (Ex. C-4) and Memo No. 4384 dated 16-12-2014 raising demand of Rs. 1,10,207/- was quashed. The opposite parties have not released the tubewell connection to complainant till date and the plea taken by the opposite parties in their written reply is that by the time the case of the complainant had been decided by the Ld court of SDM, there came up a ban upon the issuance of the demand notices and as such the opposite parties are unable to issue any such demand notice to the complainant and the connection could not be released to the complainant. A perusal of file reveals that order of court of Ld SDM is dated 18-1-2018 (Ex. C-4) vide which the memo No. 4384 dated 16-12-2014 raising demand of Rs. 1,10,207/- was quashed. The opposite parties refund the 50% amount deposited by complainant while filing appeal before Ld SDM court, vide order dated 9-5-2018. The ban, if any, was imposed on the issuance of demand notices vide memo dated 22-11-2018 (Ex . OP-1/2). The opposite parties failed to explain why action regarding release of tubewell connection to the complainant was not taken from 18-1-2018 till 22-11-2018. If any action was not taken by the opposite parties during this period, the complainant is not liable to suffer for their lapse rather it proves that opposite parties are deficient in service. The plea of the opposite parties, on the one hand, is that the connection could not be released to the complainant due to ban upon release of tubewell connections and on the other side, during pendency of this complaint, they have issued Memo No. 1748 dated 18-4-2019 (Ex. C-7) to complainant vide which they asked the complaint to comply with the demand notice upto 18-5-2019 which was issued on 18-2-2014. Therefore, in this way, the version of the opposite parties is contradictory. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to release the electricity tubewell connection to the complainant. It is also made clear that opposite parties are at liberty to get completed formalities from the complainant, if any, required for release of the electricity tubewell connection. 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 : 02-12-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
