BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.132 of 2023
Date of Instt. 18.04.2023
Date of Decision: 25.10.2024
Gurmej Kaur W/o Sh. Daan Singh R/o VPO Kotli Than Singh, Tehsil & Distt. Jalandhar through attorney Harjinder Singh S/o S. Resham Singh R/o VPO Kotli Than Singh, Tehsil & Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. The Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala.
2. The Chief Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Shakti Sadan, Jalandhar.
3. S.D.O., PSPCL, Birring, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. B. P. Ralh, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Adv. Counsel for OPs.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is an agriculturist and she applied for motor connection as per notification of PSPCL to S.D.O. of PSPCL Birring. The complainant deposited the fee of Rs.500/- on 19.12.2016 and Rs.1500/- on 23.09.2016 and Rs.85,702/- on 14.12.2016. The OP did not install any motor connection in the name of the complainant which is already applied under the proper procedure as per the Govt. notification. The complainant through her attorney made many requests to the OP No.3 to install the motor connection, but in that case the OP No.3 did not accede the request of the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 06.12.2022 to the OPs, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension and harassment as the Commission may deems fit and further be directed to install the motor connection in the name of the complainant for which she has deposited the proper fee, otherwise the OPs have not installed the motor connection then they are liable to repay the amount with interest @ 12% to the complainant.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and has been filed just to harass the OPs. It is further averred that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. It is further averred that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint and is stopped by her own acts, conduct, acquiescence, admission and omissions from filing the present complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint on wrong and incorrect facts and has suppressed the true and material facts. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant applied for motor connection as per notification and deposited the fee of Rs.500/- on 19.12.2016 and Rs.1500/- on 23.09.2016 and Rs.85,702/- on 14.12.2016, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the counsel for the complainant very minutely.
6. It is admitted that the complainant applied for motor connection as per notification to the OP. It is admitted and proved that the complainant deposited Rs.1500/- on 23.09.2016, Rs.85,702/- on 14.12.2016 and Rs.500/- on 19.12.2016 for motor connection. The complainant has alleged the deficiency in service as the OPs have not given to motor connection to the complainant despite reminders and requests.
7. The OP has alleged that the complainant has concealed the material fact from the OP. On spot inspection, it was found that there was another connection installed on the spot in the name of the complainant. As per rule, one connection was already in the name of the complainant, therefore, another connection could not be granted, so he has denied the deficiency in service by the OP.
8. The complainant has proved the receipts of fee Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. Title deeds showing the ownership of the complainant of the property regarding which the connection was applied Ex.C3. The complainant has proved on record the correspondence Ex.C8 to Ex.C11, vide which she has been making request to the OP to refund the security to the complainant as despite depositing the amount for motor connection, the connection has not been installed.
9. The OP has proved on record the application form Ex.OP1. Perusal of this form shows that the complainant applied for the motor connection on 29.03.2007. Vide Ex.OP-2 dated 29.03.2007, the OPs have sent the letter for approval on the Form A of requisition. Ex.OP-3 shows that this demand notice was received by the Harjinder Singh, Attorney of the complainant. Vide Ex.C-4, Harjinder Singh, Attorney of the complainant, sought extension for producing the required documents. Again the notice was sent to the complainant on 01.02.2016 for approval. Harjinder Singh, the attorney, gave affidavit to the effect that he is not having any Tubewell Connection in the entire Punjab and he will be responsible if any statement of his found correct. Indemnity bond was given by the Harjinder Singh, Attorney of the complainant, vide Ex.OP-6. The site plan has been proved Ex.OP-7. Agreement was also signed by the attorney of the complainant Ex.OP-8 and undertaking was given by him vide Ex.OP-9 to the effect that the AP Connection shall be subject to the restriction regarding the use of electricity. The test report has been proved by the OP as Ex.OP-10. Ex.OP-11 is the letter written by Assistant Executive Engineer to Sub Divisional Officer mentioning therein that the consumer is already having AP15/1486 connection in her name, therefore, this connection cannot be issued. Similarly, vide Ex.OP-12 the information was sent to the complainant on 12.01.2017 that since the complainant Gurmej Kaur is already having connection in her name, therefore, this connection cannot be granted. Vide ExOP-13, the OP gave reply to the complainant for refund of the security money mentioning therein that since the affidavit filed by the complainant is found incorrect and wrong, therefore, no refund can be issued and necessary action shall be taken by the OPs as per rules.
10. From the above said facts and circumstances, it is concluded that the complainant was already having connection in her name and this information was not given to the OP rather affidavit was given by her through attorney to the OP that in the entire Punjab, she is not having any AP connection. Indemnity bond was also filed. Though, the complainant had deposited the amount for the installation of the new connection, but as per rules, if one is already having one connection, no second connection can be given, unless and until the rules of the electricity supply allow. She has concealed this factum from the OP, therefore, no deficiency in service has been proved. There is no unfair trade practice by the OPs. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove her case and the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
25.10.2024 Member President
