DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : CC/128/2019

Date of Institution : 04.09.2019

Date of Decision : 10.02.2020

Birj Lal son of Sh. Keshwa Nand r/o Village Dhaula, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala. 

...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman.

2. The XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Barnala. 

3. The SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Tapa-2, Tehsil and District Barnala. 

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Ramandeep Rajput counsel for complainant.

Sh. Lokeshwar Sewak counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 3.

Opposite party No. 2 exparte.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

3. Smt. Manisha : Member

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant namely Birj Lal has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala and others. (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant had applied with the opposite parties an AP connection vide application No. 15010AP dated 12.02.2013 and deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- on the same day vide receipt No. 158 dated 12.2.2013. Further, on 18.2.2014 demand notice No. 1407 dated 18.2.2014 was duly issued to the complainant and in compliance of that complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 93,994/- including late fee vide receipt dated 2.5.2016 for releasing the above mentioned connection and all the documents as required from the complainant have been submitted with the opposite parties. 

3. It is further alleged that thereafter the opposite parties introduced the complainant with a new scheme to release the tubewell connection under Chairman's discretionary quota on priority basis and complainant on assurance of opposite parties applied for shifting of above mentioned connection application under Chairman's discretionary quota on priority basis. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued a letter dated 22.12.2016 and in compliance of this letter the opposite parties have got deposited an amount of Rs. 25,100/- vide receipt No. 285 dated 2.1.2017 from the complainant and complainant also submitted all the documents as required by the opposite parties. 

4. The complainant further alleged that till now no connection has been released to the complainant either on the basis of above mentioned Application No. 15010AP or on the basis of application under the Chairman's Discretionary Quota on priority basis and even no intimation has been supplied to the complainant in this regard. The complainant is ready to complete any other formality if requires. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 7.8.2019 through his counsel but to no effect. The complainant on 30.8.2019 also approached the opposite parties to release the connection but they refused to do the same. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to release the electricity tubewell connection to the complainant either on the basis of Application No. 15010AP Or on the basis of application under the Chairman's discretionary quota on priority basis.    

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and  harassment.           

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

4) Any other relief this Forum deems proper.

5. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 have filed written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Further, it is submitted that complainant had applied for AP connection under 2/1/2 (Two and half Acre) Scheme but when the inquiry was held the opposite parties found that the complainant owned 20 Kanal 08 Marlas of land and had filed false affidavit attested by Tehsildar Barnala and in this regard the opposite parties issued a notice to the complainant and then he again applied for the connection under another category i.e. Chairman Category after filing an application for adjusting the earlier amount but due to Code of Conduct the said connections under the Category banned vide Circular of PSPCL dated 20.8.2018. So, complainant is no liable for any relief. Further, present complaint is outside the purview of Act and complainant is not a consumer. Further, present complaint is beyond limitation and complainant has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings. 

6. On merits, it is admitted that complainant applied for AP connection vide application No. 15010AP dated 12.2.2013 and deposited the amount of Rs. 3,500/- but connection could not released to the complainant under 2/1/2 scheme as mentioned in the preliminary objections. It is admitted that on 18.2.2014 demand notice bearing No. 1407 was issued to the complainant and in compliance of the same complainant deposited the demanded amount on 2.5.2016. The opposite parties also written letter to the complainant on 31.5.2016 that the complainant is not eligible for the connection and then complainant applied for the connection under another scheme. Further, after many requests of the complainant the opposite parties adjusted some part of the amount in another scheme and in this regard the complainant made an application to the opposite parties. It is admitted that  a letter was issued to the complainant on 22.12.2016 but it was regarding to deposit the process fee only which was deposited by the complainant on 2.1.2017. It is further submitted by the opposite parties that connection under Chairman Category due to code of conduct banned vide circular dated 20.8.2018 so opposite parties could not issued connection to the complainant. Lastly, the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of them and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.  

7. The opposite party No. 2 has not appeared before this Forum despite service, so the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum dated 7.10.2019. 

8. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of receipt dated 12.2.2013 Ex.C-2, copy of demand notice Ex.C-3, copy of receipt dated 2.5.2016 Ex.C-4, copy of letter No. 47975 dated 22.12.2016 Ex.C-5, copy of receipt dated 2.1.2017 Ex.C-6, copy of legal notice Ex.C-7, postal receipt Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

9. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Satish Kumar Ex.OP-1.3/1, copy of letter dated 31.5.2016 Ex.OP-1.3/2, copy of affidavit Ex.OP-1.3/3, copy of jamabandi Ex.OP-1.3/4, copy of letter Ex.OP-1.3/5, copy of circular Ex.OP-1.3/6 and closed the evidence.   

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments also filed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 3. 

11 It is admitted by the opposite parties that complainant applied for AP connection vide application No. 15010AP on 12.2.2013 and deposited the amount of Rs. 3,500/- vide receipt dated 12.2.2013 Ex.C-2. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that demand notice dated 18.2.2014 was issued to the complainant and in compliance of the same the complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 93,994/- on 2.5.2016 vide receipt Ex.C-4. The objection of the opposite parties is that the complainant applied for AP connection under 2/1/2 (Two and Half Acre) scheme. But as he owned 20 Kanals 08 Marlas of land as per copy of jamabandi Ex.OP-1.3/4 so the opposite parties have written letter dated 31.5.2016 Ex.OP-1.3/2 to the complainant vide which intimated to him that his case has not to be considered for release of connection under this scheme. 

12. The opposite parties admitted that thereafter complainant applied for tubewell connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota and they issued letter dated 22.12.2016 to him to deposit the process fee. It is further admitted by the opposite parties that complainant deposited the said fee on 2.1.2017 vide copy of receipt Ex.C-6. But under this category the objection of the opposite parties is that under this category due to code of conduct the release of connection has been banned vide circular of PSPCL dated 13.4.2018 Ex.OP-1.3/6. 

13. We have perused the circular No. 20/2018 dated 13.4.2018 Ex.OP-1.3/6 in which at Page No. 3 it is mentioned that the instructions regarding extension in validity period of the sanction letters already issued under Chairman Discretionary Quota shall be issued later on. This circular is of dated 13.4.2018 but till today the opposite parties have not issued any instructions regarding the release of these connections even after the lapse of more than 21 months. 

14. Further, we have perused the documents i.e. copy of receipt dated 12.2.2013 Ex.C-2, copy of receipt dated 2.5.2016 Ex.C-4 and copy of demand notice dated 18.2.2014 Ex.C-3 and from these documents it is proved on the file that complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 93,994/- vide receipt Ex.C-4 only after the issuance of the demand notice Ex.C-3. After the receipt of this amount the opposite parties issued letter dated 31.5.2016 Ex.OP-1.3/2 vide which they have declared that the complainant is not eligible for the AP Tubewell connection so his case cannot be considered. From the perusal of these documents we cannot understand why the opposite parties initially not investigate the case of the complainant when he deposited the processing fee of Rs. 3,500/- vide receipt Ex.C-2 that he is eligible for the AP connection or not. The opposite parties after the lapse of more than three years from the depositing the processing fee declared vide their letter dated 31.5.2016 Ex.OP-1.3/2 that the complainant is not eligible for AP connection and spoiled his more than three years for this purpose. From the copy of receipt dated 2.1.2017 Ex.C-6 it is proved on the file that complainant also deposited Rs. 25,100/- in the new category as processing fee but in this category also the opposite parties have done nothing even after the lapse of more than three years from depositing the processing fee. In this way, the opposite parties have wasted about seven years of the complainant in waiting for his tubewell connection even after depositing the required fee which in our view is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

15. In view of the above discussion present complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to issue demand notice to the complainant under the Chairman Category 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 under this category. The opposite parties are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs. 93,994/- deposited by the complainant vide receipt Ex.C-4, in his new connection under Chairman Category besides Rs. 25,100/- deposited by him vide receipt Ex.C-6 under Chairman Category. The opposite parties are further directed to  pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, harassment caused to the complainant and litigation expenses. All 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:

    10th Day of February 2020

 

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member

 

(Manisha)

Member