Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/2

Bikkar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Parmjeet Singh

16 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :                   2 of 2018

Date of Institution :        3.01.2018

Date of Decision :          16.01.2019

 

Bikkar Singh aged about 55 years s/o Balbir Singh r/o Village Dhilwan Kalan,  Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Junior Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Division Bargari.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Bargari.
3. XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Sub Division, Kotkapura.
4. Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Patiala.

.........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

              Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Paramjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

   Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab

                                         cc no. - 2 of 2018    

State Power Corporation Ltd for not releasing  tubewell connection and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant urgently required tubewell connection and therefore, he applied for 5 H.P. motor connection in general category with OPs and also deposited requisite fee of Rs.1500/-vide receipt no.234 dated 29.03.2007. It is submitted that complainant is ready to bear all the necessary cost for installation of motor connection. Ops assured him that they would release the motor connection to him after some years, but even after long time, they have not released tubewell connection to him. Now, it  has come to the notice of complainant that OPs have released electric tubewell connection to those persons who applied in year 2007 but connection has not been released to complainant. complainant approached OPs and made several requests to them to release him electric connection but all in vain as OPs did not hear his requests. Though complainant is ready to bear all the expenditure for getting released the tubewell connection, but OPs have never issued him any demand notice and even they have flatly refused to issue him tubewell connection for no reason. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused huge financial loss, inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for

                                                      

cc no. - 2 of 2018

which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to release connection under general category and also prayed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                   Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 9.01.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                         On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant himself not complied with their requirements because as per Circular No.2/2013, complainant was to submit the undertaking regarding ownership of his land before Sub Division by 25.01.2013, but complainant failed to do the same. This date was further extended to 28.02.2013, but complainant again did not submit the undertaking with OPs by date fixed. He submitted his undertaking with OPs on 18.04.2016, which was very late and even does not relate to the case of complainant. As per Circular No.14/2016, undertaking was to be taken from applicants who had applied between the period from 1.04.2014 to 15.03.2016, but complainant applied for connection much prior to 1.04.2014. complainant applied for tubewell in 2007 and he was bound to submit his undertaking by 28.02.2013, which he did not submit in

                                         cc no. - 2 of 2018    

prescribed time and now, relief sought by him is incorrect and wrong and is therefore, denied. it is averred that turn of complainant has not yet come. He is at serial no.687 in seniority list and connections are issued as per seniority list on arrival of turn. Ops cannot issue connection to anyone by bye-passing the seniority list and now connections are being issued to applicants of year 1991. It is further averred that connection would be released to complainant when his turn would come as per seniority list maintained by them. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities        to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 8 and closed the same.

6                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Baldev Singh as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-5 and closed the evidence.

7                                        We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

8                                      From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is

                                                      

cc no. - 2 of 2018

that he applied for tubewell connection in general category in 2007 and deposited requisite fee with OPs against proper receipt. OPs assured to release him tubewell  connection but now, it has come to the notice of complainant that OPs have issued connection to those applicants, who applied much after him and have not issued connection to him for reasons best known to him. In  reply, OPs have sternly denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that tubewell connections are being issued as per seniority list and they cannot violate the rules and regulation of PSPCL. Name of complainant is at serial no.687 and connection would be released to him as soon as his turn comes and it cannot be issued to him by bye-passing the seniority list. At present, connections are being issued to those who applied in year 1991 and turn of complainant has not come yet. Connection would be issued as per seniority list maintained by them and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs

9                          Ld Counsel for OPs placed on record Circular Letter No.2 of 2013 vide which guidelines for issuing tubewell connections are clearly mentioned. As per this notification undertaking regarding ownership of land was required to be furnished with Ops by 25.01.2013 and this date was further extended for 28.02.2013, but as per document Ex OP-2 there is no doubt that complainant furnished the requisite undertaking on 18.04.2016 i.e very much late that the prescribed period. Through ExOp-1/ affidavit of Balwinder Singh Engineer, OPs have stressed on the plea taken by them. There is no violation of rules and

                                         cc no. - 2 of 2018    

regulations by OPs and they cannot bye pass the seniority list maintained by them. complainant himself submitted his undertaking pertaining to his ownership of land to OPs very late. He was to furnish the same by 28.02.2013, but he submitted the said undertaking regarding his ownership of his land to OPs on 18.04.2016 meaning thereby very late than the prescribed period and now, he can not take the benefit of his own wrong.

10                            In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is made out that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs in releasing tubewell connection to complainant. They are rightly following the criteria set up by them as per their seniority list maintained by them. Therefore, complaint filed by complainant stands hereby dismissed. However, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 16.01.2019

 

(Param Pal Kaur)        (Ajit Aggarwal)

Member                                  President