| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 92 of 26-03-2018 Decided on : 28-04-2022 Manjit Singh aged about 30 years S/o Gurcharan Singh R/o Village Naruana, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ........Complainant
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director The Assistant Executive Engineer (DS), Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sangat, District Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Manjit 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 Naruana, Tehsil and District Bathinda. The complainant is small farmer as he is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 162 Kanals 18 Marlas in khewat No. 314 khatuni No. 692 as per Jamabandi for the year 2014-15. It is alleged that the complainant applied for a motor connection/ tube-well connection of 7.5 BHP in September, 2016 under the scheme of Chairman discretionary quota on priority basis for irrigation of his land at Village Naruana, with opposite parties and he received copy of order/memo No. 32453/Approved/S-5/128 Bathinda rural dated 5.10.2016 with approval of tube-well connection, subject to complying the condition mentioned in the approval letter. The complainant deposited Rs.16,500/ vide receipt No. 291 dated 21.12.2016 with opposite party No. 2 and also submitted necessary documents as mentioned in approval letter/memo No. 32453 dated 5.10.2016. The opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that tubewell connection will be released to him within a month. Believing assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant sown paddy crop in his field but due to non providing connection, the paddy crop of the complainant was completely destroyed for lack of water. It is alleged that issuance of approval letter itself means that the opposite parties are in a position to release the tube-well/motor connection and only then the consumer is issued a letter and is ordered to deposit the further necessary charges, for release of motor connection. In this case, the complainant deposited Rs.16,500/- on 21.12.2016, but till the date of filing of complaint, the opposite parties failed to release tube-well/motor connection to the complainant. Tubewell connection of the complainant has not been released and the same is being delayed on one pretext or the other without any sufficient cause or reason, due to which complainant is suffering huge losses every year as his crops are being ruined due to lack of water. Complainant has also filed written complaints to the opposite parties on 9.11.2017 and to Supdt. Engineer, PSPCL, Bathinda, on 16-1-2018, but despite of these complaints, the opposite parties did not pay heed to the requests of the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite parties several times and requested them to release his motor connection, but to no effect. Due to the said act of the opposite parties, the complainant has been suffering mental tension, agony, botheration harassment, humiliation and financial losses for which he claims Rs.1,00,000/- as damages. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to release him motor connection in question and pay him compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- besides Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. That the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. That the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Commission and has concealed the true and material facts. It has been pleaded that the true facts are that the complainant had applied for tubewell connection under Chairman Quota on priority basis in September, 2016. Thereafter, the complainant was issued order vide memo No. 32453/Approved/S-5/128 dated 5-10-2016 thereby directing the complainant to comply with the aforesaid order and make payment of requisite amount on account of processing fee and initial security. Accordingly, complainant while complying with the aforesaid order, deposited Rs.16,500/- (processing fee Rs. 2,000/- per B.H.P. & Rs. 200/- per BHP initial security) vide receipt No. 291 dated 21.12.2016 and thereafter, the process to issue the demand notice was in progress. However, due to elections in Punjab, Code of Conduct was imposed on 4.1.2017. Thereafter, vide letter/circular No. 1355/611 of 19.4.2017 issued by Chief Engineer, Commercial, Patiala, vide which it was directed that 'All cases where agriculture tubewell applications have been complied with the demand notice and have deposited the full cost and test report before imposition of Model Code of Conduct shall be released' meaning thereby, those applicants, who have not been issued demand notice and test reports were not submitted, are not entitled to get connection till further orders/directions. In the case of the complainant, he had simply applied AP connection under Chairman quota and deposited the requisite security, but he was not issued demand notice, so he is not entitled to the proposed connection till further directions are given by the Head Office. Now, the competent authority vide letter memo No. 177/181/SSM-414/AP Policy/L issued instructions as under:-"Cut Off date: Due to large pendency of demand notices already issued no new (fresh) demand notices against General Category or any Priority Category SP applicants (except Newly Introduced Priority of the Freedom Fighters) shall be issued till further orders.". This way, this is a policy matter and opposite parties are unable to intervene into the matter till further orders from the competent authority. Further legal objections are that there is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. That the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and has been filed only to harass and humiliate the opposite parties. On merits, the opposite parties reiterated their version as pleaded in legal objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 26-3-18 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of approval letter (Ex. C-2), photocopy of letter & receipt (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. C-5), photocopy of letter and postal receipt (Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-8), Jamabandi (Ex. C-9) and another affidavit dated 2-8-18 of complainant (Ex. C-10). In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit dated 18-9-18 of Baljinder Singh (Ex. OP-2/1) and photocopy of letters (Ex. OP-2/2 to Ex. OP-2/5). 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 complainant applied for 7.5 BHP tube-well connection in Chairman's Discretionary Quota and memo No. 32453/Approved/S-5/128 dated 5-10-2016 was issued to him vide which tubewell connection of complainant was approved/sanctioned and in compliance of this letter/memo, complainant deposited Rs. 16,500/- on 21-12-2016 vide receipt No. 291 (Ex. C-4) towards processing fee and till date connection has not been released to complainant. The plea of the opposite parties is that the tube-well connection could not be issued to the complainant due to non-issuance of demand notice. Model Code of Conduct had come into force from date of announcement of elections i.e. from 4-1-2017 and the elections process was completed on 15-3-2017. The opposite parties have also pleaded that memo No. 1355/611 dated 19-4-2017 vide which it was directed that “All cases where agriculture tubewell applicants have complied with the demand notices and have deposited the full cost and test report before imposition of model of conduct shall be released.” The opposite parties have placed on file memo No. 1540/44 dated 20-7-2017 (Ex. OP-2/4) to show that it has been ordered by the competent authority that AP tubewell connection shall only be released to the applicants who have made compliance of demand notice from 5-1-2017 to 11-1-2017. The opposite parties have also placed on file memo No. 20/2018 dated 13-4-2018 (Ex, OP-2/5) which reveals policy/guidelines issued by the PSPCL regarding non-release of tube-well connection of all the categories (except category of freedom fighter) till further order. A perusal of file reveals that sanction and process of release of tubewell connection to complainant was started in September, 2016, well before imposition of model code of conduct, so the above said memos issued thereafter i.e. on 19-4-2017, 20-4-2017 & 13-4-2018 have no relevancy as the tubewell connection was already sanctioned in the year 2016 and these memos cannot operate retrospectively. It is pleaded case of the opposite parties that in compliance with the order of the opposite parties, complainant deposited Rs. 16,500/- on 21-12-2016 and thereafter, the process to issue the demand notice was in process and on 4-1-17, model code of conduct was imposed in Punjab due to elections and election process was completed on 15-3-2017. It is not the plea of the opposite parties that after 2016, no tubewell connection was released by the opposite parties to anyone. 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 tubewell connection. The opposite parties failed to produce any rules/policy due to which tubewell connection cannot be released to complainant. The opposite parties on the one hand got applied motor connection under Chairman Quota on priority basis from complainant in the year 2016 and got deposited an amount of Rs. 16,500/- from him in the year 2017 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 Chairman Discretionary Quota on priority basis scheme, then the salient features of scheme i.e. discretionary quota and priority would loose significance and the purpose of said scheme will be frustrated. The opposite parties have already approved release of tubewell connection to complainant and now they cannot deny it. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not releasing tubewell connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota to complainant. 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 tubewell electric connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota, as already sanctioned/allowed to the 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. Announced : 28-04-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
