Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1284

PSPCL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurmail Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Dharindra Shukla

21 Jan 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No. 1284 of 2012

                                                        

                                    Date of institution: 27.9.2012  

                             Date of Decision:  21.1.2015

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Kahnuwan, through its S.D.O. Sub Division Kahnuwan, Tehsil and Distt. Gurdaspur.
2. Senior XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Qadian, Distt. Gurdaspur.
3. The Chairman/Managing Director, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala.

…..Appellants/Ops.

                                      Versus

Gurmail Singh son of Wasan Singh, Resident of Village Kot Dhandai, Tehsil and Distt. Gurdaspur.

…..Respondent/Complainant

 

First Appeal against the order dated 24.7.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellants            :         Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate

          For the respondent :         Ex.-parte.

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as “the OPs”) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 24.7.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur(hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.157 dated 19.4.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant(hereinafter referred as ‘the complainant’) was allowed with a direction to the Ops to issue demand notice to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order and then release the tubewell connection within next 15 days and they were also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as consolidated compensation including litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the Ops on the allegations that he is an agriculturist having agricultural land in revenue estate of Village Kot Dhandal Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. On 2.2.1996, he had applied for tubewell connection of 5 BHP after depositing a sum of Rs. 240/-. About four months back, the Ops issued demand notice to all the applicants, who applied for tubewell connection after the complainant applied for. He immediately approached the Ops at Kahnuwan, the employees of OP No. 1 disclosed that due to mistake they did not issue the demand notice to the complainant. Till date the complainant was approaching the office of opposite party at Kahnuwan for issuance of demand notice and for release of the tubewell connection but they were putting off the matter with one excuse or the other, which amounts to the deficiency in services on their part. Hence, the complaint with a direction to release the connection and also pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation.

3.                Notice was issued to the Ops. Sh. Sukhwinder Singh Saini, Advocate appeared on behalf of the opposite party on 28.5.2012 but he sought adjournments for 4 dates to file reply and to file his power of attorney. Vide order dated 10.7.2012, it was observed by the District Forum that sufficient opportunities were given to the counsel for the Ops but they failed to file reply, therefore, the defence of the Ops was struck off and on 24.7.2012,the complaint was decided in favour of the complainant as referred above.

4.                In the grounds of appeal, the Ops had contended that they were not having sufficient time to file revision petition against the order because the matter was to be put up before the concerned authorities and approval of the competent authorities was to be taken, which takes time but in the meantime the complaint was disposed of after striking the defence of the opposite party, therefore, they could not put up their defence before the learned District Forum. It was further contended that the applicant had applied for under AP General Category, and the Ops introduced ARTC Scheme in the year 2011-12 and the applicants, who were registered before 31.12.2002 in case interested to get the tubewell connection were to apply under that scheme but no application was given by him. Otherwise also there was no proper evidence on the record to prove that juniors to him were released the connection before him.

5.                It is borne from the record that the defence of the Ops was struck down by the learned District Forum vide order dated 10.7.2012 and the final order was passed on 24.7.2012. The period was too short for any Government Organization to file a revision petition or appeal against that order. Further in case we go through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, no doubt that he deposited Rs. 240/- for release of AP connection of 5 BHP on 2.2.1996 with the Ops but his allegations are that his juniors in the seniority were released the connection but he has not given the name of any person before the District Forum and placed any record with regard to the seniority. The counsel for the appellant stated that in case opportunity is granted to the appellant to file the written statement before the learned District Forum then they will file the seniority list and from that it will be cleared that seniority has been bye-passed or not.

6.                No doubt that the appellant had taken five adjournments to file the written reply and that the learned District Forum was within its right not to give any extension in the time in accordance with Section 16 of the Act. But at the same time sufficient evidence should be there to corroborate the version as given in the complaint and in case an opportunity is granted to the Ops to file the written statement then the things will be more clear. Therefore, we find it proper to give an opportunity to the Ops to file the written statement.

7.                In view of the above discussion, we accept the appeal and set-aside the impugned order. The Opposite parties will pay Rs. 5,000/- to file the written statement to the complainant in A/c payee cheque. The District Forum will give only one opportunity to the opposite parties to file the written statement after the date the District Forum had received the file.

8.                The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum 20.2.2015.

9.                The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 2500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 2500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.

10.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.1.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

January 21, 2015.                                                                                                                                                           (Jasbir Singh Gill)

as                                                                                                                                                                                                Member