DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 170 of 2017
Date of Institution : 07.12.2017
Date of Decision : 25.05.2018
Karamjit Singh son of Pritam Singh son of Gobinder Singh resident of Mashe Patti, Village Thuliwal, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
P.S.P.C.L the Mall Patiala, through its secretary.
XEN P.S.P.C.L Sub Division Barnala, District Barnala.
SDO Punjab State Power Corporation Limited distributor Division Rural Barnala.
Amandeep Singh Assistant Engineer Sub Division P.S.P.C.L Thuliwal, Rural.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: Sh. N.P. Singh counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Lokeshwar Sewak counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(MS. VANDNA SIDHU MEMBER)
As per complaint No. 170 of 2017 father of the complainant applied for the release of electric AP connection for running electric Motor for pumping out the water for irrigation from the reserve Fauji Quota vide No. AXNo. 12245 dated 7.8.2012 and security was deposited but till the time of releasing demand notice father and mother of the complainant had been died. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 4 instead of releasing the said connection to the complainant released the same to some other person for the reasons best known to him. The complainant made number of written requests to the opposite parties for the release of above said connection, but all in vain. On 10.10.2017 the complainant alongwith Jaswinder Singh visited the office of opposite party No. 4 for releasing the connection, but he flatly refused to do so. It is further alleged that the complainant is an agriculturist and his family totally dependent on the income of agriculture and complainant suffered a huge financial loss. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs:-
The opposite parties may be directed to release the electric connection in the name of complainant.
Further to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds of complaint is beyond limitation, maintainability, concealment of material facts etc. In the preliminary objections it is submitted that the opposite parties rejected the case of the applicant/complainant as per rules which is as under:-
“Electricity proviso 13.8 (V) Ex-Serviceman: The priority shall be allowed on production of copy of the discharge certificate duly attested by the concern AE/AEE/XEN of PSPCL or the Tehsildar/Magistrate of the area. Ex- serviceman, widows and disabled defence personnel will be eligible to get the benefits of this priority besides a serviceman in his last year of service may also apply through his commanding officer for tube well connection which shall be released on priority on production of certificate from the commanding officer to the effect that application is due for retirement from defence within one year”
3. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that father of the complainant applied for the release of electric AP connection for running electric Motor from ex-serviceman quota vide No. AXNo. 12245 dated 7.8.2012. it is denied that the security was ever deposited and any demand notice was ever released by the opposite parties. All other allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. To prove his case the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Jaswinder Singh Ex.C-2, copy of Adhaar Card Ex.C-3, copy of application dated 14.11.2017 Ex.C-4, death certificate of Rachpal Kaur Ex.C-5, death certificate of Pritam Singh Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.
5. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Amandeep Singh SDO PSPCL Ex.O.P-1, copy of application form of Pritam Singh father of the complainant Ex.O.P-2, copy of ration card of Pritam Singh Ex.O.P-3, copy of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 13.8(V) Ex.O.P-4 and closed the evidence.
6. After perusing the entire record minutely and hearing of learned counsel for the parties, this Forum has the view that father of the complainant could not comply or obey conditions for regulating the grant of priority for agriculture consumers as per proviso of Electricity Act i.e. proviso 13.8 (V) Ex-serviceman:
“The priority shall be allowed on production of copy of the discharge certificate duly attested by the concern AE/AEE/XEN of PSPCL or the Tehsildar/Magistrate of the area. Ex-serviceman, widows and disabled defence personnel will be eligible to get the benefits of this priority besides a serviceman in his last year of service may also apply through his commanding officer for tube well connection which shall be released on priority on production of certificate from the commanding officer to the effect that application is due for retirement from defence within one year”
7. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention here that opposite parties did not make any denial on their preliminary objections about applied for the AP connection by father of complainant. Opposite parties also bringing notice before this Forum by filing written version that Pritam Singh and his wife died before issuing any demand notice to Pritam Singh. So, opposite parties rejected the case of the complainant as per rules. Ex. C-4 letter no. 1142 of dated 14-11-2017 it was clearly mentioned that Pritam Singh deceased deposited security fees. And it was deposited under Ex.serviceman quota.
8. It is pertinent to mention here also that security was deposited by father of complainant on 7.8.2012 and death of his father on 17.3.2013 as per Ex.C-5. Complainant did not make any request between this period of five years to the opposite parties. Opposite parties brought on record Ex.O.P-2 which is application form for connection of deceased Pritam Singh but on this Ex.O.P-2 it was specifically written that as per rule 13.8 (V) of ESIM the case of applicant is rejected due to his death and his wife has also expired.
9. So, the above stated complaint is dismissed because it is beyond limitation and the present complaint is not maintainable within the jurisdiction of above stated Forum. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
25th Day of May 2018
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
