DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC.No.174 of 03.08.2009<br /> Decided on: 11.11.2009<br /> <br /> Gurwinder Kaur D/o Balveer Singh, aged about 35 years, resident of village Kotle Kothe, Dhaba Wale, Tehsil Gidderbaha, Distt. Muktsar.<br /> …….Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.<br /> …….Opposite parties. <br /> <br /> Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the Complainant : Sh. J.S. Virk, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. R.D. Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh. George, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> GEORGER, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. Briefly stated, the complainant’s case is that he applied for tubewell connection of 3.810 HP on 20.03.2007. She deposited application amount of Rs. 1000/-, and she was to deposit remaining amount on receipt of demand notice from opposite parties. In the month of June 2009, she came to know that opposite parties issued a demand notice to all the applicants, who got themselves registered for getting tubewell connections, prior and after her registration. She immediately approached opposite party No.2. On 03.07.2009, she moved an application for extension of time for depositing the demand notice amount. Her application was allowed subject to her depositing Rs. 1500/-, and thereafter, she deposited the amount of demand notice i.e. Rs. 18,000/- on 07.07.2009. She has claimed that the demand notice dated 13.02.2009 was never served upon her, and due to the negligence of opposite party No.2, she could not deposit the demand notice amount within a period of three months, and therefore, her seniority for grant of tubewell connection disturbed, as many of the persons, who were junior to her, have come up in seniority, due to no fault of her, as she never received a demand notice dated 13.02.2009 from opposite party No.1. She has claimed that opposite parties may be directed to make refund of Rs. 1500/-, which the complainant had to deposit under compelled circumstances for getting extension of time to deposit the demand notice amount, which in fact, she was not responsible for delay, and to keep her name in the seniority at the upper side as compared to other applicants alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> 2. Opposite parties contested the allegations of the complainant raising legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; he has no locus-standi, or cause of action; complaint has been filed on false and frivolous grounds; complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, and have suppressed the true and material facts, and Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.<br /> 3. On merits also while denying the facts pleaded by the complainant, opposite parties pleaded that the demand notice was sent to the complainant alongwith other applicants on 13.02.2009 by post. She was given three months time to deposit the amount of Rs. 18,000/-, but she did not turn up till 03.07.2009. On 03.07.2009, she moved an application for extension of period of demand notice, without mentioning that the demand notice dated 13.02.2009 was in fact not received by her. The period of demand notice was extended up to 12.08.2009 on payment of Rs. 1500/-, she paid the amount of Rs. 1500/- as well as the amount of demand notice on 07.07.2009. Before, she deposited the demand notice amount, 71 applicants had already deposited the amount of demand notice by 11.05.2009, and as she deposited the amount of demand notice on 07.07.2009, she was allotted seniority No. 72. Opposite parties have not done any wrong; they are not guilty of deficiency in service, and therefore, compliant is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 4. Complainant in order to prove her allegations, filed her own two affidavits dt. 29.09.09 and dt. 24.07.09 Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, and also brought on record, copies of payment receipt Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 and copy of demand notice Ex.C-6.<br /> 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite parties filed affidavit of Sh. Jagjit Singh, SDO dt. 01.10.09 Ex.R-1 and also brought on record, copy of A&A Form Ex.R-2; copy of demand notice Ex.R-3; copy of letter dt. 03.07.09 Ex.R-4; copy of dispatch register Ex.R-5 and copy of Seniority list Ex.R-6.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 7. Complainant in order to prove her two affidavits Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, and has brought on record demand notice dt. 13.02.2009, whereby she was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 18,000/- Ex.C-6. She deposited this amount with opposite parties on 07.07.2009 vide receipt Ex.C-4. Opposite parties have brought on record, an application of the complainant Ex.R-4 dated 03.07.2009, which she moved before opposite party No.2 for extension of time for depositing the demand notice amount. This application was allowed, and time was extended by 12.08.2009. She deposited an amount of Rs. 1500/- vide receipt Ex.C-3 dated 03.07.2009. Opposite parties accordingly registered her name immediately on 07.07.2009 at Serial No. 72, after the name of Sh. Butta Singh, who deposited the demand notice amount on 11.05.2009, and to whom seniority No. 71 was allotted. Complainant has brought on record herself, duplicate copy of demand notice dated 13.02.2009 Ex.C-6. As to where from, she obtained this duplicate copy, she has not explained. Opposite parties have not definitely issued a fresh demand notice after dated 03.07.2009. Opposite parties simply extended the period of demand notice dated 13.02.2009 by 12.08.2009 for deposit of Rs. 18,000/-. If complainant would have not received notice Ex.C-6, she would have definitely mentioned this fact in her application Ex.R-4, which She filed before opposite party No.2 on 03.07.2009 for extension of time for depositing the demand notice amount Rs. 18,000/-. The facts narrated by the complainant by filing the complaint, appears to have been cooked up after wards that she has not been served with demand notice Ex.C-6 by opposite parties. There appears to be no fault on the part of opposite parties. Complainant has failed to prove that opposite parties were in any way guilty for deficiency in service, or that demand notice was not served upon the complainant, due to any fault on the part of the opposite parties. The claim put forwarded by the complainant, therefore, appears to be without any substance. Otherwise also, this Forum cannot compel opposite parties to discriminate other persons, who have deposited the demand notice amount in time, and allot seniority to the complainant over and above them. Complaint is without any merit. Accordingly, it stands dismissed.<br /> 8. The parties are left to be bear their own costs.<br /> 9. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (GEORGE)<br /> 11.11.2009 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> (DR. PHULINDER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER<br />