The complainant Baljinder 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 on receipt of aIl the papers/file and after satisfying themselves about the eligibility of the complainant to get the tube-well electric connection under the Chairman Discretionary Quota, the opposite parties sent letter No. 45503/Approved/S-5/128, Vol.3/4/Bathinda Rural dated 21-12-2016 to the the Deputy Chief/DS Circle, Mukatsar with copy of the application of complainant in the year 2016, vide which it was intimated that necessary sanction has been granted.
The complainant alleged that he submitted required documents to opposite party No. 2 and on receipt of documents, the complainant was directed to deposit security amount of Rs.16,700/- which he deposited vide receipt No. 05 dated 02.01.2017. The complainant also furnished an affidavit/undertaking as required by the opposite parties.
The complainant also alleged that more than a period of two years 6 months have been elapsed, but no connection has been released to the complainant despite repeated visits of the complainant to the office of opposite parties and the matter is being postponed by them on one pretext or the other. The complainant got served legal notice dated 01.07.2019 upon the opposite parties to release the tube-well connection within 15 days from the receipt of this notice, but the opposite parties replied to the said notice on the false ground that on 04.01.2017 due to model Code of Conduct announced by election Commission of India due to assembly Elections in Punjab, no demand notice was issued to the complainant. Thereafter CE Commercial PSPCL Patiala vide memo No.1355/61 dated 19.04.2017 issued instructions, but this memo is not applicable to the rights of the complainant.
The complainant further alleged that due to non release of connection by the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering mental tension and agony and opposite parties intentionally delayed the connection of the complainant for which complainant claims compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant alleged that he repeatedly visited the office of the opposite parties and requested them to accept his genuine demand and release the above said Tube-well connection, but to no effect.
The complainant further alleged that one Baltej Singh of village Nandgarh filed CC/17/186 on 11.07.2017 on the same grounds before this Commission which was allowed vide order dated 26.07.2018 and opposite parties were directed to release the tube-well electric connection to said Baltej Singh.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to release the electric tube-well connection to the complainant and pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation in addition to Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
Upon notice, the opposite parties put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable. That the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under the 'Act'. That the complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties. That the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. That the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of unnecessary parties. That the complaint is false and vexatious and that the complainant did not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts.
On merits, it has been admitted that complainant applied for tube-well connection under Chairman Discretionary Quota of the opposite parties.
It has been pleaded that the letter dated 21.12.2016 issued as per guidelines of the opposite parties at that time. Later on, on 04.01.2017 the code of conduct came into effect due to elections and after the elections, the new government changed the policy and issued letter on 19.04.2017 with the directions that the connection will be released to only those persons who have deposited the full cost and test report before imposition of model code of conduct and in this case neither test report prepared nor full cost deposited with the opposite parties nor any demand notice of full cost ever issued before model code of conduct, as such this connection cannot be released to the complainant in any Quota.
The opposite parties have admitted that complainant deposited Rs.16,700/- with them on 02.01.2017. 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 (Ex. C-14) and the documents (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-13).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Iqbal Singh Dhillon (Ex. OP-1/1) and the documents (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/4).
The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.
It is admitted fact that complainant applied for 7.5 BHP tube-well connection in Chairman's Discretionary Quota and opposite parties approved/sanctioned the same vide memo No. 45504 dated 21-12-2016 (Ex. C-7). Complainant deposited Rs. 16,700/- vide receipt dated 2-1-2017 (Ex. C-8) towards processing fee and till date connection has not been released to complainant.
The submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the connection in question could not be released to the complainant due to imposition of Model Code of Conduct on 4-1-2017 and thereafter Punjab Government issued instructions dated 19-4-2017 to release the tubewell connection only to all those applicants who have complied with all the formalities i.e. issuance of demand notice, deposited the full cost and submitted test report before imposition of the model code of conduct.
The opposite parties have referred and placed on file memo No. 1355/611 dated 19-4-2017 (Ex. OP-1/4) vide which it has been decided by the higher authorities of PSPCL 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.”
A perusal of this memo reveals that some instructions were issued by Principal Secretary to field officers vide D.O. letter 11-1-2017, for strict compliance and vide above said memo (Ex. OP-1/4) further decision was taken in this regard. The opposite parties have not placed on file D.O. Letter dated 11-1-2017 to prove the matter referred in this letter and whether said memo relates to Chairman's Discretionary Quota ?. Moreover, sanction and process of release of tubewell connection to complainant was started well before imposition of model code of conduct, so memo dated 19-4-2017 has no relevancy with the case in hand as the tubewell connection to the complainant was already sanctioned in the year 2016 and this memo cannot operate retrospectively.
It is pleaded case of the opposite parties that in compliance with the order of the opposite parties, complainant deposited Rs. 16,700/- on 2-1-2017 and thereafter, the process to issue the demand notice was in procsess 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. 16,700/- 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 basis 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 :
31-05-2022
(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President
(Shivdev Singh)
Member
(Paramjeet Kaur)
Member
