Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/170

Jaspinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Brar

11 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    C. C. No :          170 of 2017

Date of Institution : 23.05.2017

Date of Decision :   11.02.2019

 

Jaspinder Kaur d/o Amarjit Singh r/o Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jaitu Road, Kotkapura Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, City Sub Division Kotkapura.                                    

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

              Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Gursahib Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops for not releasing electric connection under Chairman Quota despite issuance of memo no.37227 dt 17.11.2016 and for seeking directions to Ops to issue connection under quota and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses to complainant.

cc no - 170 of 2017

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that an electrical connection under Chairman quota was sanctioned to complainant vide memo no.37227 dt 17.11.2016. complainant immediately completed all the formalities and approached OPs to submit the requisite documents with them and requested them to release the said connection, but OPs refused to accept the documents on the ground that code of conduct has been imposed and during this period no such connection can be released and asked her to come after the uplifting of code of conduct. After elections, complainant approached OPs and requested them to accept her documents and release connection as per quota rules, but this time OPs flatly refused to take the documents on the pretext that statutory period for releasing the connection under Chairman Quota has been expired and now these documents have no value and did not accept the same. Complainant made several requests to OPs that she submitted the duly completed documents earlier but OPs themselves denied to receive the same on the ground that code of conduct and when complainant approached after elections to OPs, they stress that statutory period for releasing the connection has been finished. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which she has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to release connection under Chairman Quota and also prayed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

cc no - 170 of 2017

3                                        Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 1.06.2017, 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 he has no locus standi to file the present complaint and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that some formalities were required to be completed by complainant and incomplete application was produced without any record and during this process, code of conduct was imposed. It is averred that letter allotting the connection is dated 17.11.2016 and it received in office on 6.12.2016 and validity of this letter was for three months only and thereafter it had no effect. OPs received  a letter dt 11.01.2017 from the office of Principal Secretary, Govt of Punjab Department of Power, Chandigarh wherein it was mentioned that due to code of conduct to maintain status quo till further orders regarding all the applications received for release of A P Tubewell connection be maintained under the said quota and even

cc no - 170 of 2017

complainant had not applied with OPs by that date and when complainant came forward with his application, the order to maintain status quo was in force and now validity of said letter has been over and thus, complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and it is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further averred that they received another letter dt 19.04.2017 vide which OPs were directed to release connections to those persons who complied with demand notice and have deposited full cost and test report before imposition of code of conduct, but in present case neither any application was submitted nor any demand notice was issued to complainant and thus, question of complying with the demand notice does not arise at all. It is further averred that application under said quota cannot be considered after expiry of period of said letter. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

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 10 and closed the same.

6                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Harinder Singh as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-3 and closed the evidence.

cc no - 170 of 2017

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

8                                                     From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that she was got sanctioned electrical connection under Chairman quota vide memo no.37227 dt 17.11.2016. She immediately completed all the formalities and approached OPs to submit the requisite documents to OPs with request to release the connection, but OPs refused to accept the documents on the ground that code of conduct has been imposed and during this period no such connection can be released and asked her to come after the uplifting of code of conduct. After elections, complainant again approached OPs and requested them to accept her documents and release connection as per quota rules, but this time also OPs flatly refused to take the documents on the pretext that statutory period for releasing the connection under Chairman Quota has been expired and now these documents have no value and did not accept the same. Grievance of complainant is that despite several requests, OPs did not release connection under Chairman quota to her, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, Ops stressed mainly on the point that complainant did not submit the application within prescribed time and therefore, she is not entitled to the relief of said quota connection as sought by her. OPs asserted that incomplete application was produced by

cc no - 170 of 2017

complainant without any record and during this process, code of conduct was imposed. Letter for allotting the connection is dated 17.11.2016, but it was received in office of OPs on 6.12.2016 and validity of this letter was for three months only and thereafter it had no effect. OPs received  a letter dt 11.01.2017 from the office of Principal Secretary, Govt of Punjab Department of Power, Chandigarh wherein it was mentioned that due to code of conduct to maintain status quo till further orders regarding all the applications received for release of A P Tubewell connection be maintained under the said quota and even complainant had not applied with OPs by that date and when complainant came forward with his application, the order to maintain status quo was in force and now validity of said letter has been over and thus, complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and it is liable to be dismissed. OPs received another letter dt 19.04.2017 vide which they were directed to release connections to those persons who complied with demand notice and have deposited full cost and test report before imposition of code of conduct, but in present case neither any application was submitted by complainant nor any demand notice was issued to her and thus, question of complying with the demand notice does not arise at all. It is further averred that application under said quota cannot be considered after expiry of period of said letter. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs.

9                                                Complainant has relied upon documents Ex C-5 which is copy of application given by complainant to OPs for

cc no - 170 of 2017

releasing her tubewell connection under Chairman quota, copy of letter dt 17.11.2016 Ex C-6 vide which tubewell connection under said quota was sanctioned to her. Copy of letter dt 27.12.2016 written by complainant to Tehsildar for verification of area of her land, copy of jamabandi Ex C-10, clearly showing the fact that she was entitled to get released the said connection under Chairman quota. There is no denial of the fact that tubewell connection under Chairman Quota was sanctioned to complainant vide memo dt 17.11.2016 and it is also admitted that as per memo dt 17.11.2016 complainant had the time of three months for applying under said connection. Complainant submitted the all the relevant documents complete in all respects to OPs but OPs refused to accept the same on the ground that code of conduct has been imposed and asked her to come after elections. Thus,  if code of conduct was imposed then, sanctity of providing three months time to complainant was well deferred after the code of conduct and when complainant again approached OPs, they refused to accept her documents on the ground that validity of letter dt 17.11.2016 has no effect. It is observed that complainant submitted the documents well within the prescribed time, rather it is on the part of OPs who did not receive the documents and lingered on the matter. They should have retained the said documents and consideration was to be made on those documents after uplifting of code of conduct, but OPs intentionally did not take up her documents and refused to release connection on the ground that statutory period for releasing connection stand expired. Due to imposition of code of

cc no - 170 of 2017

conduct, no new project can be implemented but thereafter, it was the duty of OPs to accept the documents and release her tubewell connection under Chairman quota. From the careful perusal and after giving thoughtful consideration, it is made out denial in not accepting her documents and not releasing connection under said quota to complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10                                     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and OPs are directed to issue tubewell connection to complainant as per Chairman Quota and are further directed to take care in dealing with such cases in future. 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. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 11.02.2019

                                      (Param Pal Kaur)         (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                      Member                                     President