Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/342

Gobinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Chawla

19 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :       342

Date of Institution : 22.11.2016

Date of Decision :   19.05.2017

Gobinder Singh aged about 46 years s/o Sewak Singh s/o Thana Singh, r/o Village Rori Kapura, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

                                                                ...Complainant

Versus

1. Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Distribution Sub Division, Jaitu, District Faridkot.                              
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
3. XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                   

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Sunil Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Ashwani Kumar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                              Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking directions to Ops to release tube well connection and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.7,500/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                               Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that vide A & A Form No.14371 dated 26.03.2007, complainant applied for release of tubewell connection and in compliance of demand notice bearing no 1672 dated 11.04.2016 issued by Ops, complainant deposited Rs.69,600/-vide receipt no. 59 dated 22.04.2016 with Ops, but  they have not released tubewell connection to him. It is pertinent to mention that complaint owns land bearing Khasra no.2546 alongwith other land in village Rori Kapura. Land bearing Khasra no.2546 situated in village Rori Kapura is in possession of complainant as co-sharer and even in partition proceedings, the said khasra number falls in the share of complainant in Naksha ‘Bey’ and no one raised any objection regarding its possession before Assistant Collector, 1^st Grade to not to give this land to complainant. It has come to the notice of complainant that Ops are not releasing tubewell connection to complainant on the ground that Kahan Singh s/o Bachiter Singh one of co-sharer has objected for issuance of tubewell connection and under the  influence of some influential persons, OP- 1 have not been releasing tubewell connection to complainant, which is quite illegal and unlawful. Complainant has made several requests to Ops to issue tubewell connection to him but all in vain. He has also issued legal notice to Ops, but that also bore no fruit. It amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for directions to Ops to release tubewell connection alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.7,500/-. Hence,  this complaint.

3                                     Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 29.11.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that OPs have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the dispute between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before such committee and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and even complainant has not impleaded Kahan Singh, who raised objections regarding issuance of tubewell connection to him as necessary party to complaint and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong but admitted before the Forum that complainant applied for tubewell connection and demand notice was issued by them. Ops have denied all the other allegations being made up story and concocted ones and asserted that complainant has concealed the material fact from this Forum. It is asserted that complainant is in joint possession of land in question and he did not disclose this fact before Ops and this fact came to their notice, when Kahan Singh co-sharer of said land filed objections. All the other allegation are refuted being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5                                      Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 9 and closed the same.

6                                       In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Vijay Kumar Bansal as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 19 and then, evidence of OPs was closed by order of this Forum.

7                                              The ld Counsel for complainant argued that vide A & A Form No.14371 dated 26.03.2007, complainant applied for release of tubewell connection and in compliance of demand notice bearing no 1672 dated 11.04.2016 issued by Ops, complainant deposited Rs.69,600/-vide receipt no. 59 dated 22.04.2016 with Ops, but  they have not released tubewell connection to him. It is pertinent to mention that complaint owns land bearing Khasra no.2546 alongwith other land in village Rori Kapura. Land bearing Khasra no.2546 situated in village Rori Kapura is in possession of complainant as co-sharer and even in partition proceedings, the said khasra number falls in the share of complainant in Naksha ‘Bey’ and no raised any objection regarding its possession before Assistant Collector, 1^st Grade to not to give this land to complainant. Now, it has come to the notice of complainant that Ops are not releasing tubewell connection to complainant on the ground that Kahan Singh s/o Bachiter Singh one of co-sharer has objected for issuance of tubewell connection and under the  influence of some influential persons, OP- 1 have not been releasing tubewell connection to complainant, which is quite illegal and unlawful. Complainant has made several requests to Ops to issue tubewell connection to him but all in vain. Legal notice issued to Ops also bore no fruit. It amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and it has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he has prayed for directions to Ops to release tubewell connection alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

8                                     To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of  consumer. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this case. The Ops have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees and complainant should approach such committees to settle his dispute and moreover, complainant is not their consumer and connection in question is being used for commercial purpose and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is asserted that complainant has not impleaded Kahan Singh, who raised objections regarding issuance of tubewell connection to him as necessary party to complaint and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.  It is admitted before the Forum that complainant applied for tubewell connection and demand notice was issued by them. Ops have denied all the other allegations being made up story and concocted ones and asserted that complainant has concealed the material fact from this Forum. It is asserted that complainant is in joint possession of land in question and he did not disclose this fact before Ops and this fact came to their notice, when Kahan Singh co-sharer of said land filed objections. All the other allegation are refuted being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.

9                                                   We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

10                                            The case of the complainant is that he applied for release of tube well connection and completed all the requisite formalities. He also deposited requisite fee as demanded by Ops, but did not issue him tubewell connection on the ground that one Kahan Singh has raised objections regarding ownership of said land where tubewell is sought to be released by complainant. In reply Ops stressed mainly on the point that complainant has not impleaded Kahan Singh as necessary party to complaint, who raised objections regarding his release of tubewell connection and asserted that complainant is in joint possession of said land and this fact is concealed by complainant.

11                                      To prove his pleadings, complainant stressed on copy of jamabandi Ex C-9, which clearly proves that Khasra no.2546 is in possession of complainant as co-sharer. Ex C-8, copy of Naksha Bey also proves the fact that khasra no.2546 falls in the share of complainant in partition proceedings and there is no doubt over the proprietorship of complainant regarding land in question where tubewell connection is required to be sought by complainant. Copy of demand notice Ex C-6 and receipt Ex C-7 shows that Ops issued demand notice to complainant and in compliance thereof, complainant deposited the requisite fee of Rs.69,600/-as demanded by Ops to them. Legal notice Ex C-2  alongwith postal receipts Ex C-3 to 5 issued by complainant also reiterate the pleadings of complainant.

12                              From above discussion and evidence and documents produced on record by complainant, we are of considered opinion that OPs did not issue the tubewell connection to complainant without going through the real facts of case. Doubts raised by Kahan Singh seem to be wrong and act of OPs believing the false allegations of any one without asserting its genuineness, amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to complainant. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, present complaint is hereby allowed. The OPs are directed to release tubewell connection to complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 19.05.2017

         

             Member                                  President                                  (P Singla)                           (Ajit Aggarwal)