DISTRICT CONSUMERDISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No.293 of 19.10.2007 Decided on : 4.2.2008 <br /> <br /> Dara Singh S/o Makhan Singh, R/o Kothe Lal Singh, District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2. Superintending Engineer, DS Circle, Punjab State Elecy. Board, Bathinda.<br /> 3. Senior Executive Engineer, DS Division, Punjab State Elecy. Board, <br /> Bhagta Bhai Ka, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.<br /> 4. Assistant Executive Engineer, DS Sub Division, Punjab State <br /> Electricity Board, Goniana, District Bathinda.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. V.K Kaushal, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to issue him demand notice immediately and subsequently release and instal the tubewell connection as per his seniority; pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and loss to his crop for non-issuance of demand notice as well as electricity connection and costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass as under:- <br /> Complainant had moved an application to the Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board for release of tubewell connection to him on priority basis. Application was accepted. He was allowed tubewell connection on priority basis under Chairman's Discretionary Quota for irrigation of his land. In this regard, letter No. 92690/94 dated 29.12.2006 was issued to the Superintending Engineer, DS Circle, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bathinda, copy of which was sent to him (complainant). In compliance of the terms and conditions of the letter, a sum of Rs. 17,100/- was deposited by him in the office of opposite party No. 4 vide receipt No. 600/86010 dated 7.2.2007 i.e. Rs. 15,000/- as processing charges, Rs. 1,600/- as ACD and Rs. 500/- as MS for release of tubewell connection of the capacity of 7.5 BHP. A&A Form and some other documents were also submitted. He continued approaching the authorities at Goniana as well as Bhagta Bhai Ka for getting the tubewell connection released, but to no effect. It is alleged by him that the persons junior to him who have applied for tubewell connections under this category are being issued demand notices ignoring his seniority. Requisite amount was deposited by him in the month of February, 2007 whereas the opposite parties have issued demand notices to the persons who had deposited the charges in the months of June/July, 2007. Opposite parties are ought to release them tubewell connections. In this manner, discriminatory treatment is being meted out to him. In these circumstances, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file it; he has not approached this Forum with clean hands; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainant is not consumer and complaint is false and frivolous. Inter-alia, their plea is that complainant had applied for electricity connection for tubewell purpose to irrigate his land out of Chairman's Discretionary Quota. He has deposited requisite amount. As per instructions previously issued by the Board, the connections out of this quota were stopped till further orders. Accordingly, connection could not be released. However, as per memo No. 1396/1401/Ch. priority quota dated 15.10.2007 issued by the Board, connections are to be issued to all applicants who got registered their applications under Chairman's priority quota before 26.3.2007. Case of the complainant would be considered accordingly. Connection would be released after completing requisite formalities. Accordingly to them, no connection has been released to the junior of the applicant. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Dara Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.12), photocopy of endorsement No. 92690/94 dated 19.12.2006 (Ex.C.1), photocopies of receipts dated 7.2.2007 and 3.1.2008 (Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.8), photocopy of seniority list (Ex.C.3), photocopy of demand notices dated 28.11.2007 dated 4.12.2007 (Ex.C.4 & Ex.C.6), photocopy of seniority list of Chief Minister's Quota (Ex.C.5), photocopy of test report (Ex.C.7), photocopies of Commercial Circulars No. 13/2007 and 33/2007 (Ex. C.9 & Ex.C.10) and photocopy letter dated 15.10.2007 (Ex.C.11).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AEE/SDO, photocopy of letter dated 26.3.2007 (Ex.R.2), copy of Seniority List of Chairman's Quota (Ex.R.3) and photocopy of seniority list of Chairman's Quota (Ex.R.4).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the parties.<br /> 7. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Kaushal, learned counsel for the complainant are that demand notices to the persons junior to the applicant, have been issued by opposite party No. 4. Separate seniority lists for Chairman's Discretionary Quota and learned Chief Minister's Quota have been prepared arbitrary, although there is no rule to prepare separate seniority lists. Opposite parties have not released the electricity connection to the complainant, although connections have been issued to six persons by making separate seniority list of Chief Minister's quota as is evident from Ex.C.5. <br /> 8. Mr. Nayyar, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that as per instructions previously issued by the board, connections out of Chairman's Discretionary Quota were stopped till further orders. Due to this fact, electricity connection could not be released to the complainant. As per memo dated 15.10.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.11, connections are to be issued to all the applicants who have got registered their applications under Chairman's priority quota before 26.3.2007. Application of the complainant has been considered accordingly and demand notice dated 28.11.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.4, has been issued. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 9. We have considered the rival arguments. Complainant had applied for release of tubewell connection out of Chairman's Discretionary Quota. His request was considered and was allowed. In this regard letter, copy of which is Ex.C.1, was issued by Dy. Director/Sales-1 to the Superintending Engineer, Distribution Circle, PSEB, Bathinda. Copy of this order was issued to the complainant. Complainant complied with its terms and conditions by way of depositing Rs. 17,100/- on 7.2.2007 as is evident from Ex.C.2. Chief Engineer/Commercial issued letter dated 26.3.2007 which reads as under :-<br /> “It has been decided to stop the issue of demand notice to all applicants who have been allowed priority under Chairman's discretionary quota with immediate effect i.e. w.e.f. 26.3.2007. It is further desired that Sub-Division-wise numbers of applications under Chairman's discretionary quota where demand notice has not been issued be supplied immediately for the information of Chairman please.”<br /> Clause No. 3 of Ex.C.1 is reproduced as under :-<br /> “The priority shall be maintained upto the stage of release of connection as per the earlier guidelines.”<br /> 10. Copy of the order of Chief Engineer/Commercial dated 26.3.2007 does not show earlier guidelines regarding the release of the connection to the complainant as Chairman's Discretionary Quota was withdrawn. As per Ex.C.1, priority is admissible to the complainant upto the stage of release of connection. No reason has been assigned for non-issuance of the demand notice in the letter dated 26.3.2007. Opposite parties have maintained seniority list regarding Chairman's Discretionary Quota. Name of the complainant figures at Sr. no. 104 in the seniority list of Chairman's Discretionary Quota as is evident from Ex.C.3. Compliance of Ex.C.1 was made by the complainant on 7.2.2007 by way of depositing the amount. Letter dated 26.3.2007, copy of which is Ex.R.2, was issued by the opposite parties. Even this letter has been flouted by the opposite parties as they issued demand notice to Sh. Dharam Singh, whose name is at Sr. No. 109 in the seniority list as is evident from Ex.C.3 & Ex.R.4 on 16.8.2007. Opposite parties were treating letter dated 26.3.2007 as a bar for issuance of demand notice to the complainant and not for Sh. Dharam Singh to whom demand notice has been shown to have been issued on 16.8.2007. Demand notice was not issued to the complainant despite the fact that he repeatedly approached the opposite parties. To the contrary, demand notice has been issued to his junior as is evident from Ex.C.3.<br /> 11. Vide Commercial Circular No. 13/2007, Chairman's quota to the extent of 5% of the annual target was converted into discretionary quota of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Vide Commercial Circular No. 33/2007 dated 5.7.2007, discretionary quota of the Hon'ble Chief Minister was reconverted as discretionary quota of the Chairman. It is not out of place to mention here that bare perusal of copy of Commercial Circular No. 13/2007 (Ex.C.9) and copy of Commercial Circular No. 33/2007 (Ex.C.10) reveals that only name of the quota for priority tubewell connections was changed from time to time, but policy of the priority tubewell connections remained the same. It remained invoked and is still invoked. Learned counsel for the opposite parties could not show us any rule, regulation or instructions of the Board to maintain separate seniority lists of Chairman's Discretionary Quota and Hon'ble Chief Minister's Discretionary Quota. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that act and conduct of the opposite parties in maintaining two separate seniority lists i.e. of Chairman's Discretionary Quota and of Hon'ble Chief Minister's Discretionary Quota is arbitrary, cannot be thrown to the winds in the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly when no instructions to this effect have been brought to our notice. Stoppage of the demand notice on the basis of the letter dated 26.3.2007 appears arbitrary and unreasonable in view of the letter dated 15.10.2007 of Director/Sales-1, copy of which is Ex.C.11, according to which whole matter has been reviewed and it has been decided that the notices be issued to all the applicants who got registered their applications under Chairman's priority quota before 26.3.2007. Had the hurdle in issuing demand notice been created legally and on solid basis through letter dated 20.3.2007, it would not have been removed vide letter dated 15.10.2007. As discussed above, opposite parties are maintaining two seniority lists i.e. one of Chairman's Discretionary Quota and another of Hon'ble Chief Minister's Discretionary Quota, copies of which are Ex.C.3 and Ex. C.5 respectively without disclosing the instructions, rules and regulations under which separate seniority lists are required in such like situation. Priority allowed to the complainant is admissible upto the stage of release of the connection. Principle of first come first served has to be applied. As per instructions of Ex.C.1, priority allowed to the complainant could not be ignored by the opposite parties as it is admissible upto the stage of release of electricity connection. Complainant deposited the amount on the basis of the letter, copy of which is Ex. C-1, on 7.2.2007. Despite this, demand notice was not issued to him and was issued to Dharam Singh, who has been placed at Sr. No. 109 of the seniority list on 16.8.2007. As per Ex.C.5, connections have been issued to six persons on the basis of their application forms i.e. A & A forms dated 28.5.2007, 11.6.2007,18.6.2007, 10.7.2007, 10.7.2007 & 10.7.2007 respectively. Hence, there is violation of the principle of natural justice as well towards the complainant. This complaint was preferred by the complainant on 19.10.2007. Demand notice was issued to him on 28.11.2007 i.e. during the pendency of the complaint. He has deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 22,500/- vide receipt Ex.C.8. This is also clear from Ex.C.6. Copy of the test report dated 5.12.2007 prepared regarding the connection of the complainant is Ex.C.7. Evidence, facts and circumstances clearly show that discriminatory treatment has been given to the complainant regarding the release of tubewell connection to him. Accordingly, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established.<br /> 12. Complainant is availing the services of the opposite parties against consideration. Accordingly, he is consumer. Since the amount has been got deposited from him, he has got the locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaint.<br /> 13. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our foregoing discussion, complainant deserves release of electricity connection for running the tubewell as per his seniority, copy of which is Ex.C.3. He is craving for compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused him mental tension, agony, harassment and even loss to his crops for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 5,000/-.<br /> 14. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 15. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Issue electricity connection of 7.5 BHP to the complainant as per his seniority, copy of which is Ex.C.3.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance with regard to compensation and costs be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 16. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 4.2.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br /> <br />