| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 289 of 20-06-2012 Decided on : 24-08-2012
Uttam Singh aged about 80 years S/o Nihal Singh R/o Vill. Chak Heera Singh Wala, Tehsil & District Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda. Department of Soil & Water Conservation, Bathinda, through its Divisional Officer. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman S.D.O./AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Raman Mandi. ...... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. Baldev Singh, A R of opposite party No. 1. Sh. B S Brar, counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. Opposite Party No. 2 exparte.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as ’Act’). In brief, the case of the complainant is that the Punjab Government started a new scheme named Drip/Sprinkler with the help of Central Government to save the water and 75% subsidy was given to the farmers who would like to adopt the said scheme and connections of drip system are released on priority basis superseding all other schemes. The advertisement in this regard was got published in the news paper by Punjab Government including the opposite parties. Special type of training was also given to the complainant as per scheme. The complainant contacted the Agriculture Officer and Land Division Officer for adopting the scheme and as per their instructions, drip system was installed by the complainant in his agricultural land. The opposite party No. 2 after checking the land directed the complainant to purchase the material for drip system regarding installation of ISI drip system and recommended immediate release of connection to the complainant. The complainant purchased the material for drip system and paid Rs. 30,000/- to Aggarwal Irrigations on dated 15-04-2011 and requested the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to issue the certificate about installation of drip system, but they refused to issue the certificate and told that many people have filed complaints in the Consumer Forum involving opposite parties i.e. why they are not issuing the certificate. The complainant alleged that he also approached opposite party No. 4 for depositing the security for the purpose of getting electric connection of 7.5 BHP tubewell motor for sprinkler to irrigate his land, but he flatly refused to accept the security to release the connection without any reason. The complainant further alleged that he has fulfilled all the conditions as required by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and they were duty bound to direct opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 to release the connection after getting the charges. Moreover, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are duty bound to get the connection released from the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. If there is any mis-understanding between the opposite parties, the complainant should not be harassed. The complainant met the officials of the opposite parties many times with Panchayat, but they are not getting the payment for releasing the electric connection on priority basis as per rules of Power Com. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to get the tubewell connection released from opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 and opposite parties be directed to give the subsidy and benefits provided by the Punjab Government and Centre Government for drip system and pay compensation and cost. The opposite parties filed their separate written statements. The opposite party No. 1 in its written statement has pleaded that the new scheme named Drip/Sprinkler micro irrigation scheme not relates to the Department of Agriculture (opposite party No. 1). The agricultural Department only issue the certificate to the farmers that this sprinkler system is being used on the crops other than Horticulture crops. After receiving this certificate farmer apply for the Electric Tubewell connection to the Punjab Power Corporation. This certificate is being given to those farmers who applied to Agriculture department and after physical verification, a certificate is issued to the concerned farmers. As per their record, the complainant never approached nor applied to them for this certificate. Hence, the opposite party No. 1 did not issue a certificate to the complainant that this sprinkler irrigation system is being used on the non Horticulture crops. Dasti Notice of this complaint was sent to opposite party No. 2, but despite service of notice, none appeared on its behalf and as such, exparte proceeding were taken against it. The opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has not applied for electricity connection so far much less completion of formalities for the same as per Electricity Act, rules as well as Sales Manual Instructions of PSPCL. He has not deposited the requisite security, application fee and the charges. When the complainant will apply for electricity connection and complete formalities, then he shall be released the connection on merit basis as per policy of PSPCL. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The complainant alleged that to get the aforesaid sprinkler system installed, he contacted the Agriculture Officer and Land Division Officer and as per their instructions drip system was installed in his agricultural land. The opposite party Nos. 2 after checking the land directed the complainant to purchase the material for drip system regarding installation of ISI drip system and recommended immediate release of connection to the complainant. The complainant purchased the material for drip system and paid Rs. 30,000/- to Aggarwal Irrigations on dated 15-04-2011. The complainant alleged that he requested the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to issue the certificate about installation of drip system but they refused to issue the certificate. Onus to prove his version lies on the person who alleges it. In the instant case, to prove his version, the complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-3, Estimate of Aggarwal Irrigation and receipt of Aggarwal Irrigation for Rs. 30,000/- Ex. C-4 and Ex. C-2 respectively. The complainant has not produced any document on file to prove that he approached/applied with opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 for certificates about installation of drip system, but they refused to issue the same. He has also failed to prove on file that he ever applied with opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 for the electric connection in question and complied with all the formalities. In such, circumstances when the complainant himself has not complied with the necessary formalities which were required to be completed for the electric connection in question or for getting the aforesaid certificates, the opposite parties cannot be concluded as deficient in services. In this regard, we get support from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and another, 2001 (1) CLT (SC) wherein it was held:- “Deficiency in service-Burden of proof-The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.” In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.
Pronounced 24-08-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
