Naveen Puri, President

1. The complainant Bakhshish Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called   as 'the Act') against Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited, the Mall Patiala through its Managing Director and others on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties with further prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund/ release a sum of Rs. 9,577/- to the complainant immediately without any further delay or in the alternative a sum of Rs. 9,577/- be adjusted by way of depositing the same in the domestic connection of complainant besides this Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant had applied for one electric tubewell connection with the opposite parties and the opposite parties prepared the estimate for a sum of Rs. 93,000/-. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 93,000/- with the opposite parties and out of which a sum of Rs. 9,577/- was of labour for installation of the above said electric tubewell connection. The opposite party No. 3 assured the complainant that for installation of the electric tubewell connection of the complainant a contractor will come at the spot alongwith labourers for installation of electric tubewell connection, but at the time of installation electric tubewell connection neither contractor nor any labourer has come at the spot and thereafter the complainant approached to the opposite party No. 3 and informed him for non coming of the contractor/ labourer for installation of the electric tubewell connection and the opposite party No. 3 relied that the complainant should get install the electric tubewell connection at his own level from some private contractor/ labourers and a sum of Rs. 9,577/- deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties will be refunded/ released and adjusted and under the forced and compelling circumstances, the complainant has got installed his electric tubewell connection from the private contractor / labourers after making the payment of Rs. 10,000/-. Now the complainant has approached the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and requested to refund/ release the above said amount of Rs. 9,577/- and the complainant further requested the opposite parties to adjust the above said amount of Rs. 9,577/- in the domestic electric bill vide account No. SM46-0299F/ T41SM460299-F which is in the name of father of the complainant. The opposite parties are lingering on the matter under one pretext or the other and are not paying any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant also moved request letters to the opposite party No. 3 with the request to release/ refund a sum of Rs. 9,577/- to the complainant immediately without any delay, but no action has been taken by the opposite party No. 3 on the request letters of the complainant so far.  There is negligence in the service on the part the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint is filed. 

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and filed written version and pleaded that complainant had applied for a tubewell connection. Demand notice for deposit of Rs. 93,000/- which included cost of material, poles, contractor etc. and labour charges of Rs. 9,577/- were also included in the estimate for erection and installation of the line. The work of the erection of the line was carried out by the approved contractors of PSPCL. No date and other particulars of the assurance or the name of the official who gave the alleged assurance have been given by the complainant. There is no provision in the Electricity Supply Manual of PSPCL or any other rules to get the work done from private contractor or labour and also for refund of the amount and as such, no such alleged assurance could be given by any official as wrongly and falsely alleged by the complainant.  The complainant should have given the name and full particulars of the alleged contractor alongwith a completion report and at-least receipt for making payment to him. Nobody can himself get the line erected by employing his own labour and contractor as the erection of line involves complicated safety matters and only an approved contractor of PSPCL can full all the safety aspects. The complainant in order to prove his false allegations should have at least produced some proof by way of receipt for payment alongwith the alleged date of payment alongwith full particulars about the date etc. and also full particulars of the alleged contractor and in the absence of all these particulars and documents no legal reliance can be placed on the bald statement of the complainant. If any application was moved by the complainant as alleged then the same does not entitle him for payment of any amount unless and until cogent documentary proof about the payment of any amount to any contractor is produced, no reliance can be placed on such oral false allegations which are not supported by documentary proof. There is no provision in any rules or regulations of PSPCL for permitting any person to get the work done through private person/ contractors etc. and as such, no official of PSPCL can give any assurance for refund of any amount. The claim of the complainant is totally wrong, false and baseless and liable to be ignored and rejected. The opposite parties have denied all other allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4        Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in to evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Tejinder Singh SDO Ex. OPs/1 and closed the evidence.

5        We have intently heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/ document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We observe that the present complainant (an agriculturist senior citizen resident of Village: Sarali Mandan, Tarn Taran) had applied for a New Electric Tube Well Connection with the OP Corporation who upon its release had prepared an installation estimates of Rs 93,000/- that included Rs 9,577/- as Labor Charges to be paid to the PSPCL Labor Contractor for the proposed installation etc. However, during Tube-Well installation, no contractor/ labor personnel reached at site and the OP3 SDO advised the complainant to arrange installation labour at his own and claim refund/ reimbursement of Rs 9,577/- as deposited by him with the OP Corporation. Upon the OP3 SDO assurance, the complainant arranged for the Labor @ Rs 10,000/- to complete the T/well installation and applied for the impugned refund of the same that stands continuously awaited (since then) sans the assured release and has thus, prompted the present complaint.

6        The OP Corporation in its written statement has somehow vehemently denied any of its officer/ official having ever allowed/advised the complainant to arrange T/well Labor at his own as the PSPCL Rules do not allow either for Private Labor or its cost/ refund etc and have also sought name of its officer/official alleged to have approved of any such Labor tie-up refund arrangement etc. Moreover, the OP Corporation has also pleaded/ highlighted of the complainant’s failure to produce any evidence of private installation contractor labor having worked at the instant site through any such (raised) labor-bills or other evidence etc but at the same time they themselves have not produced any cogent evidence of T/Well installation through their own PSPCL Labor.

7        Finally, we find that the complainant has failed to satisfactorily prove his allegation of having paid for the installation labor of his T/Well Connection vide his lone unsupported evidentiary affidavit (Ex.C1) and other collateral documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 that do not prove the specific allegation; whereas the OP Corporation has simply filed its affidavit/ written statement sans any supporting evidence of having executed the instant T/Well installation (in question) through the PSPCL Labor etc. We are certainly not convinced either with the complainant’s prime allegation found bereft of suitable satisfactory evidence and/ or with the OP’s defense pleadings sans even the minimal support-evidence and are thus not inclined to decide the present complaint.

8        In the light of the all above, we dispose of the present complaint as such with its prime allegation ‘Neither Proved nor Disproved’ but with liberty to the complainant to approach civil court or avail of any other legal remedy of his choice/ advice as available in law but proceeded in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law.

9         Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.