DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : CC/74/2019

Date of Institution : 13.06.2019

Date of Decision : 26.11.2019

Amarjeet Singh S/o Bachan Singh aged 70 years R/o Sandhu Patti, Village Sekha Tehsil and District Barnala-148101. 

...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Authorized Person.  

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sanghera Sub Division, Dhanaula Road, Barnala.

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. GS Kalia counsel for complainant.

Sh. SK Kotia counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant namely Amarjeet Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala and another. (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that complainant had applied for tubewell power connection vide receipt No. 129 dated 7.6.1986 and deposited an amount of Rs. 270/-. It is further alleged that he come to know from reliable sources that demand notice was issued but the same was not delivered to the complainant till date and all AP connections applied in 1985-86 in general category have been released and installed. The complainant visited office of opposite party No. 2 many times and requested to deliver the demand notice but to no effect. Even he submitted representation dated 29.1.2019 and also sent legal notice dated 27.5.2019 through counsel but to no effect, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to issue demand notice to the complainant.   

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and  harassment.           

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other relief this Forum deems fit and proper.

Rejoinder also filed by the complainant in which he reiterated all the averments as mentioned in the present complaint. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written reply taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that complaint is not within the period of limitation. Further, the complainant has concealed the demand notice which was received by him but he failed to comply with the same so the connection has not been issued. 

4. On merits, it is admitted that complainant applied for tubewell connection and deposited the amount for this purpose. It is denied that complainant demand notice was not delivered to the complainant till date. It is further submitted that connections have been released to the other consumers who have duly complied with the demand notice and other terms for releasing the connection. They further submitted that complainant concealed the demand notice which was received by him and issued by the opposite parties on 30.3.2001 and an entry to this effect was duly made in the relevant register. It is further submitted that complainant himself failed to comply with the demand notice so the connection has not been issued to him. It is admitted that application dated 29.1.2019 and legal notice dated 27.5.2019 have been received by the opposite parties. Rest of the averments of the complaint are denied by the opposite parties and lastly they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

5. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of receipt dated 7.6.1986 Ex.C-2, copy of representation dated 29.1.2019 Ex.C-3, copy of legal notice dated 27.5.2019 Ex.C-4, postal receipts Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6, acknowledgment Ex.C-7, copy of register Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

6. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties  tendered into evidence copy of register entry Ex.OP-1.2/1, affidavit of Krishan Gopal SDO Ex.OP-1.2/2 and closed the evidence.   

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments also filed by the complainant.

8. The main legal objection of the opposite parties is that the present complaint is not within the period of limitation but in the written reply and affidavit of Krishan Gopal SDO Ex.OP-1.2/2 the opposite parties admitted that they have received the application dated 29.1.2019 and legal notice dated 27.5.2019 from the complainant on the subject in dispute so in our view there is recurring cause of action arose in favour of the complainant and the present complaint is within the period of limitation. 

9. It is admitted by the opposite parties that complainant applied for tubewell connection and deposited the amount for this purpose. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that they have been released the tubewell connections to the other consumers who have duly complied with the demand notice. 

10. The complainant proved on the file vide receipt Ex.C-2 and copy of register Ex.C-8 that he deposited the amount of Rs. 270/- for releasing tubewell connection on 7.6.1986. Further, the complainant vide application dated 29.1.2019 proved that he already intimated the opposite parties that through some reliable sources he came to know that demand notice was issued to him but it was not received by him whereas all the general connections related to the year 1985-86 have already been released. Further, vide this application Ex.C-3 and legal notice Ex.C-4 he already prayed for the issuance of demand notice and gave consent to comply the instructions of the opposite parties/department. 

11. On the other hand the opposite parties admitted that they have already issued demand notice to the complainant and to prove this they have relied upon copy of register Ex.OP-1.2/1 in which it is mentioned that on 30.3.2001 the demand notice was issued in favour of Amarjit Singh son of Bachan Singh of Sekha i.e the complainant, so in our view it is proved on the file that opposite parties already issued the demand notice to the complainant. The opposite parties never sent any reminder to the complainant for this purpose as it is well within the knowledge of the opposite parties that tubewell connection is a dire need of every farmer and all other applicants of the year 1985-86 already received the tubewell connections. The complainant already moved application Ex.C-3 and got issued  legal notice Ex.C-4 to the opposite parties for this purpose in which he agreed to comply with the instructions of the opposite parties but even then the opposite parties have not taken any action on this serious issue for a farmer, which in our view is a clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

12. In view of the above discussion present complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to issue demand notice to the complainant and on completing all the formalities by the complainant and depositing all the necessary charges by him the opposite parties are directed to release tubewell connection in his favour for which the complainant has applied. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, harassment caused to the complainant and litigation expenses. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply with this order.  Compliance of the order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

    26th Day of November 2019

 

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member