DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.544 of 17-11-2016

Decided on 30-05-2018

Jaswant Singh aged about 50 years S/o Arjan Singh R/o Village Deon, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (formerly Punjab State Elecy Board), Sub Urban Sub Division Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur Member

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Avikal Goel, Advocate.

For opposite party: Sh.Charan Singh Virk, Advocate.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Jaswant Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist of village Deon, District Bathinda. On 29.3.2007, he applied for 5 HP motor connection with opposite party for the irrigation of his fields measuring 2 acres approximately situated at Deon village under self finance scheme. He deposited the security amount of Rs.1500/- vide receipt No.83260/239. The demand notice was issued on 27.1.2014 vide No.1391 against application No.32473/AP. The demand notices were distributed by the Union Minister. On flimsy grounds, opposite party did not get amount deposited mentioned in the demand notice on the oral pretext that the security deposit is fake.

3. It is alleged that the complainant purchased the machinery to construct kotha. Opposite party again issued the demand notice dated 30.3.2016 and ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.70,693/-. The complainant got the demand draft dated 10.5.2016 prepared in name of opposite party from SBOP Bathinda, but opposite party failed to get amount deposited and it did not release the connection to facilitate its own men, who were registered afterwards.

4. It is further alleged that opposite party has illegally issued the connections, who have applied alongwith complainant or later on such as Vakil Singh S/o Birballa Singh, Gurjant Singh S/o Joginder Singh, Gurmail Singh S/o Dhanna Singh, Harmail Singh S/o Naranjan Singh, Mander Singh S/o Karam Singh, Ghuddi Singh S/o Mal Singh, Bhajan Singh S/o Sahib Singh.

5. It is further alleged that opposite party indulged in unfair trade practice and it has acted illegally. It has neither got amount deposited on flimsy grounds nor released the connection to the complainant. Due to non-release of connection, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has suffered loss of crops to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs. He has also suffered from mental tension for which he has claimed Rs.50,000/-. Hence, this complaint for directions to opposite party to release the connection immediately and pay Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation for loss of crops and for mental agony with interest @ 12% per annum.

6. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing its written version. In the written version, opposite party has raised the legal objections that the complaint does not disclose cause-of-action. It is not maintainable. The complainant has no locus-standi and cause-of-action to file the complaint. He has not approached this Forum with clean hands. He has not revealed the true and correct facts. He has misstated facts and concealed truth from this Forum with ulterior motive. He is disentitled, barred and estopped by his own default, unethical act and conduct from filing the complaint and he deserves no relief from this Forum.

   Further legal objections are that the complainant was issued demand notice on 27.1.2014 vide which he was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.70,693/-, but he did not deposit the amount. As such, the connection could not release to him. He is not 'consumer' of opposite party.

7. On merits, it is admitted that the demand notice was issued on 27.1.2014 vide No.1392 against application No.32473/AP. It is denied that opposite party did not get amount deposited mentioned in the demand notice. It is asserted that no demand notice bearing No.3086 dated 30.3.2016 has ever been issued by opposite party. The demand notice is forged and fabricated. It is also asserted that opposite party issued the connection to each and every applicant well within time. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8. Parties were asked to produce the evidence.

9. In support of his claim, the complainant have tendered into evidence Photocopy of receipt, (Ex.C1); photocopies of letters, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, Ex.C8 and Ex.C10); photocopy of test report, (Ex.C5); photocopy of receipt challan, (Ex.C6); photocopy of invoice, (Ex.C7); photocopy of demand draft, (Ex.C9); his affidavit dated 23.1.2017, (Ex.C11); photocopy of list, (Ex.C12) and submitted written arguments.

10. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Singh dated 27.4.2017, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of dispatch register, (Ex.OP1/2) and closed the evidence.

11. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for complainant.

12. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that opposite party has admitted that the complainant applied for motor connection and deposited Rs.1500/- on 29.3.2007. It is also admitted that he was issued demand notice on 27.1.2014 vide No.1391. His version is that opposite party refused to receive the security deposit. He has also asserted that opposite party issued the second demand notice No.3086 dated 30.3.2016. Of-course, opposite party has denied from this fact, but the complainant has placed on record copy of demand notice, (Ex.C8). He has also produced on record copy of demand draft dated 10.5.2016, (Ex.C9) to prove that he was ready to deposit amount in question, but opposite party has admittedly refused to accept this amount and release the connection. Therefore, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party stand proved. The complaint be accepted as prayed for.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. He is employee of opposite party, but he has not disclosed this fact. He is claiming relief by alleging issuance of demand notice No.3086 dated 30.3.2016. Of-course, he has placed on record alleged copy of demand notice as Ex.C8, but opposite party has also produced on record dispatch register, (Ex.OP1/2), which proves that originally, demand notice No.1391 was issued to Bhagwan Singh S/o Basant Singh. There is interpolation in the entry by inserting entry No.1391-A in the name of Jaswant Singh. It leads to inference that the demand notice at serial No.1391-A was forged and fabricated in connivance with some official of opposite party. Opposite party has denied from having issued demand notice No.3086 dated 30.3.2016. The complainant has not got any record produced from opposite party to prove dispatch of its demand notice. Therefore, demand notice, (Ex.C8) is also forged and fabricated. No relief can be granted on the basis of this demand notice.

14. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

15. The complainant has claimed relief by pleading that opposite party issued the demand notice No.3086 dated 30.3.2016. The categorical version of opposite party is that no demand notice bearing No.3086 dated 30.3.2016 was issued by it and demand notice is forged and fabricated. Of-course, the complainant has placed on record copy of letter, (Ex.C6) to prove that he was issued the demand notice No.3086 dated 30.3.2016, (Ex.C8), but opposite party has termed it forged and fabricated. Opposite party has also placed on record copy of entry register, (Ex.OP1/2) to prove that there is interpolation in the dispatch register by inserting No.1391-A in the name of complainant Jaswant Singh for issuance of demand notice. As per opposite party, there are allegations of forgery and fabrication, which cannot be examined by this Forum. These allegations are to be examined by the civil court. Therefore, appropriate remedy with the complainant/applicant is only before the civil court.

16. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.

    This order will not prejudice the right of the complainant, if any, to approach the civil court.

17. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

18. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced:-

    30-05-2018

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member