The complainant Jaswinder Kaur (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 the opposite parties provide essentia1 services including grant of new electric connections, tubewell connections and connections under Chairman Discretionary Quota and also connections on priority basis to the residents of the area/ consumers.
It is alleged that the complainant applied for tubewell connection under Chairman's discretionary quota on priority basis. On receipt of all the papers/file and after satisfying themselves about the eligibility of the complainant to get the tubewell electric connection under the Chairman discretionary quota, the opposite parties (through its AEE/Sales) sent communication/letter to the Deputy Chief/DS Circle Muktsar, with a copy to the complainant vide which it was intimated to him that necessary sanction has been granted. As per requirement of the opposite parties, the complainant deposited Rs.16,700/- as security vide receipt No. 049 dated 3.1.2017.
The complainant alleged that when the connection was not released to the complainant despite his repeated requests, he sent legal notice dated 5.7.2019 to the opposite parties and on receipt of legal notice, the opposite parties sent memo No. 1942 dated 19.7.2019 wherein they admitted that the complainant applied for release of tubewell connection under the Chairman discretionary quota and deposited necessary fee as per rules. It was further admitted that ASE/Sales had written to the Deputy Chief /DS Circle Muktsar in the year 2016. Receipt of processing fee of Rs.16700/- was also admitted but falsely pleaded that due to Model Code of Conduct announced by Election Commission of India on 4.1.2017, due to assembly elections, no demand notice was issued to the complainant. This false objection cannot sustain as even if Code of Conduct came into force that was for a limited period upto elections only and not forever. The plea of opposite parties is even falsified by memo No. 1355/61 dated 19.4.2017 issued by Deputy CE/Sales-1 to All EICs/CEs.
It is further alleged that in similar circumstances one Baltej Singh applied for tubewell connection under the Chairman's Discretionary Quota on priority basis and opposite parties sent letter dated 22.12.2016. He deposited an amount of Rs.11,100/- as security. The opposite parties failed to give tubewell connection to Baltej Singh, so he was forced to file consumer complaint No. 186 of 11.7.2017 and complaint was accepted and the opposite parties were directed to release the tubewell electric connection to the complainant. The opposite parties, dissatisfied with the order, filed Appeal No. 555 of 2018 before the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, but the said appeal was dismissed in-limine. The case of the complainant is similar to that of Baltej Singh.
The complainant also alleged that he repeatedly visited the office of the opposite parties and requested them to release the tubewell connection, but to no effect. Due to non release of tubewell connection under Chairman's discretionary quota on priority basis, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and botheration, for which she claims damages/compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to release tubewell connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota on priority basis immediately to the complainant and also pay her compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to any other additional or alternative relief.
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.
It has been pleaded that in 2014 NGT (National Green Tribunal) passed the order to stop the tube-well connections due to low water level in Punjab and for the future of public at large, but in 2015 the NGT lifted the ban with recommendations that the connections will be released to those persons who earlier applied. The opposite parties also made new policy under the circumstances of Punjab and keeping in view low ground water level, and decided not to release any new connections and release the connections earlier applied.
Further legal objections are 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 the opposite parties provide essential services including grant of new electricity connections, tube-well connections and connections under Chairman Discretionary Quota.
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. Moreover, the earlier orders passed by this Commission is not applicable in the present complaint as the Government policy and letter dt.19.04.2017 never discussed in that judgment.
The opposite parties have admitted that complainant deposited Rs.16,700/- with them on 03.01.2017. 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 dated 20.8.19 (Ex. C-1), payment receipt (Ex. C-2), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-3), photocopy of postal receipts (Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5) and memo dated 19-7-19 (Ex. C-6).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit dated 9-10-2019 of Iqbal Singh Dhillon (Ex. OP-1/1) and photocopy of letters (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 complainant applied for 7.5 BHP tube-well connection in Chairman's Discretionary Quota and opposite parties approved/sanctioned the same vide letter dated 21-12-2016. Complainant deposited Rs. 16,700/- vide receipt dated 3-1-2017 (Ex. C-2) 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 said memo relates to Chairman's Discretionary Quota. Moreover, sanction and process of release of tubewell connection to complainant was started in December, 2016, 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 3-1-2017 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. 16,700/- 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 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 :
26-04-2022
(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President
(Shivdev Singh)
Member
(Paramjeet Kaur)
Member
