| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 122 of 16-07-2020 Decided on : 15-11-2021 Gurjant Singh, S/o Mukhtiar Singh R/o Village Gehri Devi Nagar, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala (Formerly known as Punjab State Electricity Board). The Assistant Executive Engineer (DS), Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Kotshamir, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. B.S. Brar, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Gurjant 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 Ltd.., & another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is farmer and owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 24 Kanals situated at Village Gehri Devi Nagar, Tehsil and District Bathinda, as per jamabandi 2014-15 and his family members are dependant on agriculture income. It is alleged that complainant applied for a motor connection/tube-well connection of 7.5 BHP in December 2016 under the scheme of chairman discretionary quota on priority basis for irrigation of his Agriculture land at Village Gehri Devi Nagar, and deposited the Rs.22,000/-. vide receipts No. 154 and 155 dated 26-12-2016 with opposite party No. 2. He also submitted necessary documents with opposite party No. 2. The opposite parties gave assurance to complainant that within a month, a tubewell connection will be released to complainant. Believing assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant sown paddy crop in his field but due to non providing tube-well connection to complainant, his paddy crop completely destroyed due to lack of water. It is further alleged that issuance of the approval letter itself means that the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited is in a position to release the tube-well/motor connection and only then the consumer is issued a letter and is ordered to deposit further necessary charges, for release of motor connection. The complainant deposited Rs.22,000/- on 26-12-2016, but even after the gap of 3 years 6 months, opposite parties have failed to release the tube-well/motor connection to the complainant, due to which he has been suffering loss in his crops and could not get the benefits for which he applied for motor connection. It has been pleaded that the complainant also filed various written complaints to opposite parties, but despite that, the opposite parties did not pay heed to the requests of the complainant. Even the complainant got issued legal notice dated 6-07-2020 to the opposite parties in this regard but to no effect. It is alleged that from the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the opposite parties have failed to give services for which they got deposited fee and issued approval letter. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Due to said act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering mental tension, agony, botheration harassment, humiliation and financial loss for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to release the motor connection immediately and pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages and compensation for harassment alongwith litigation expenses. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply. In written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. That the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action. The complainant failed to complete formalities for the connection as per Electricity Act, rules as well as Sales Manual Instructions of PSPCL, as such he is not consumer of the opposite parties as defined under the 'Act'. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant applied for connection under Chairman quota and only deposited Rs.22,000/- vide receipts No. 154 & 155 dated 26-12-2016 towards processing fee. He was issued demand notice vide No. 2535 dated 30-12-2016 asking him to deposit Rs. 84,138/- and to submit test report by deposting Rs. 200/- as CEI fee, but the complainant failed to abide by the terms and conditions of demand notice to submit test report within stipulated six months. So, the opposite parties are not at fault. It is pleaded that the Model Code of Conduct had come into force from date of announcement of elections from 4-1-2017 and the election process was completed on 15-3-2017. Thereafter opposite parties vide memo No. 1355/611 dated 19th Apri1,2017 decided that :- "All cases where agriculture tube well applicants have complied with the demand notice and have deposited the full cost and test report before imposition of model code of conduct shall be released." Further legal objections are that the complaint is not within the stipulated period of limitation. That the complainant is barred, disentitled to file the complaint by his acts, acquiescence. That the complainant has brought a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint against the opposite parties. That intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the case, which can be decided only by civil court. That the aftldavit filed by the complainant along with the complaint is false. On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, they have prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 16-7-2020 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of payment receipts (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-4), postal receipts (Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-6), copy of Jamabandi for the year 2014-15 (Ex. C-7) and closed the evidence. In order to rebut this evidence, the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit dated 14-10-2020 of Sh. Himanshu (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of demand notice (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of memo (Ex. OP-1/3) and closed the evidence. The opposite parties also tendered memo regarding news on tubewell connections (Ex. OP-1/4) and copy of despatch register (OP-1/5) in additional evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact complainant applied for 7.5 BHP tube-well connection in Chairman's Discretionary Quota and deposited Rs. 22,000/- on 26-12-2016 towards processing fee and till date connection has not been released to complainant. The plea of the opposite parties is that Model Code of Conduct had come into force from date of announcement of elections i.e. from 4-1-2017 and the elections process was completed on 15-3-2017. Demand notice dated 30-12-2016 was issued to complainant asking him to deposit 84,138/- and to submit test report by depositing Rs. 200/- as CEI fee, but the complainant failed to abide by the terms and conditions of demand notice to submit test report within stipulated six months. The opposite parties have also referred and placed on file memo No. 1355/611 dated 19-4-2017 (Ex. OP-1/3) 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-1/3) 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. There is nothing mentioned regarding electricity connection to be released under Chairman's Discretionary Quota, issuance of demand notice under this category and upto which date these instructions shall remain effective. 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 also no relevance as the tubewell connection was already sanctioned in the year 2016 and this memo cannot operate retrospectively. The opposite parties themselves have admitted approval of tube well connection and placed on record copy of demand notice dated 26-12-2016, (Ex.OP-1/2) issued to complainant, but the plea of the opposite parties is that he has not complied with the terms and conditions of demand notice within stipulated period of six months and on 4-1-2017 model code of conduct came into force. The election process was completed on 15-3-2017. 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 him. 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 heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 08-11-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
