Complainant Balkar Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to make compensation amounting to Rs.10 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum to him from the date of due till its actual realization and appropriate stern action may kindly be taken against the opposite parties for suffering false statement in writing by the opposite party no.1 on his behalf as well as on behalf of opposite parties by giving false affidavit before the Ld.Commission by the opposite party no.5. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that previously, he had filed the Consumer Complaint against the opposite parties vide C.C.No.225 of 2016. In that case, he had pleaded that he had applied for getting Tubewell connection to irrigate his land and in this regard he had deposited the amount of Rs.1500/- as security vide Receipt No.192787, Book No.E, Receipt No.19 Dated 2.4.2017 and also completed all other formalities from the opposite parties. It was next pleaded that in the year 2014 there was Election of Member Parliament and at that time opposite parties had issued demand notice to him and after that complainant approached the opposite parties for releasing the tubewell connection after depositing the requisite amount but one Joga Singh who is serving in the said office procrastinating the matter pending with one pretext or the other and finally he refused by saying that the opposite party (Ram Gopal) who was the then S.D.O. had clearly instructed him that no tubewell connection would be issued to him but unfortunately the above said demand notice was misplaced somewhere in the house on 02.05.2016 and he tried his best to trace the same but of no use and complainant got entered the report regarding missing of demand notice vide Unique ID 1175367 dated 18.05.2016 at Sanjh Kender, Gurdaspur. It was also pleaded that complainant visited the office of opposite parties with the request to issue duplicate demand notice and also release of the tubewell connection in his favour but opposite parties refused to admit his genuine claim. Due to that reason he had earlier filed a complaint against the opposite parties. After notice, the opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed their Joint Written statement on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 4. It was admitted that tubewell connection had been applied by him and deposited the security vide receipt No. BA-1619/07 dated 02.04.2007. The opposite parties also admitted that they also issued Demand Notice to their consumers in the year 2014 who has ownership less than 2.5 acres whereas he does not fall in above cases and as such demand notice was not issued by the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that at the time of evidence, opposite party no.5 Er.Ravinder Pal Singh who was then S.D.O. PSPCL Sub Division Kahnuwan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur by way of evidence tendered his false affidavit as Ex.OP1 dated 20.12.2016 stated that no Demand Notice was ever issued to the complainant by the opposite parties as alleged by him as per the office record maintained by the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that during the pendency of the complaint whenever this Ld.Commission ordered the opposite parties to produce record, register which was maintained by the opposite parties to whom the Demand Notice was ever issued but the opposite parties as per order or for compliance of the order of this Ld.Commission produced the false record and mislead the Commission by producing false and new preparing record. Jawahar Singh who produced the record recorded a statement that the record is true and the name of Balkar Singh had not mentioned in the record maintained by the opposite parties as no Demand Notice was ever issued to him. He has further pleaded that few days back he traced the Demand Notice from his house which was issued by the opposite parties which was earlier missing and he lodged the missing report of articles on 18.5.2016 and against which the opposite parties filed false and frivolous written statement as well as affidavit and specifically denied for issuance of the Demand Notice ever to him. He has next pleaded that in the year of 2007 on 2.4.2007 vide request letter No.35350, he had applied for Tubewell Connection against which in the year of 2014, Demand Notice was issued vide No.516 dated 20.2.2014 and Demanded Rs.64,980/- to deposit for the release of Tubewell Connection, but the opposite parties were not release the tubewell connection on the basis of seniority and denying the fact that the demand notice issued to him by the opposite parties because he is not eligible for the tubewell connection. But the factual position is that on the demand of the opposite parties, he was also deposited Rs.400/- in favour of the PSPCL in the State Bank of India in the year of 2014 through receipt challan after issuing the demand notice to him. They did not admit that they have moved false affidavit before this Commission and on account of that, he has suffered mental and physical harassment. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has suffered harassment, mental torture and humiliation in the society. He approached to the opposite parties a number of times with the request to admit his genuine claim but all in vain. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately and the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint with the intention to take the undue advantage of the process of law. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party no.5 has tendered the affidavit in his evidence in this Hon’ble Commission the previous suit of the complainant being SDO of the Sub Division Kahnuwan, Engineer Ravinderpal Singh has no enmity with the complainant and did not know the complainant personally and the evidence which was tendered by him in the previous suit of the complainant i.e. filed by Engineer Ravinder Singh on the basis of the record of the office and as per the office record of the opposite parties no alleged notice was ever issued by the opposite parties to the complainant and if any produced by the complainant the same is bogus, forged one and procured illegally with the intention to drag the opposite parties in the unnecessary litigation with the intention to harass them and exract money from the opposite parties. Moreover, the opposite parties have released the tubewell connection and also paid the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as penalty as per the direction of this Hon’ble Commission. It was admitted that Jwahar Singh who produced the record, suffered a statement that the record is true and name of Balkar Singh has not been mentioned in the record maintained by the opposite party because no demand notice was ever issued to him. The affidavit filed by the opposite party no.5 is legal and genuine and as per the officials record of opposite parties as the opposite party no.5 filed the affidavit in the previous complaint in official capacity. The opposite parties have no personal rivalry with the complainant, hence the question of harassing the complainant does not arise. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Dasti summon was issued against opposite party no.4 had not been received back as unserved. From the perusal of the report made by Sh.Jaswant Kumar Peon of this Forum on the dasti summon of opposite party no.4 on 21.5.2018, it had transpired that opposite party no.4 intentionally evading the service of the dasti summon. Case called several times but none had come present on behalf of opposite party no.4. Therefore, opposite party no.4 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.5.2018.
5. On 6.8.2018, Sh.S.S.Saini, Adv. had appeared on behalf of applicant no.4 and filed vakalatnama. He had moved an application seeking permission for joining proceedings of the case at this stage on behalf of opposite party no.4 and in the interest of justice, the application allowed on 3.12.2018 and opposite party no.4 i.e. Ram Gopal SDO was permitted to join the proceedings of this case.
6. Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-15 and closed the evidence.
7. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.A.S.Nagra, SDO PSPCLtd. Ex.OP-1 and of Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh S.D.O. PSPCL Ex.OP-2 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.
8. Written arguments filed on behalf of opposite parties.
9. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; written arguments by both the parties and oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
10. The present complaint has been filed by complainant in pursuance of previous complaint filed vide C.C No.225 of 2016 for getting tube-well connection which has already been decided vide orders of this Forum (now Commission) dated 24.1.2017 (Ex.C-12). It has been disposed off with the directions to opposite party to release the tubewell connection to the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
11. Opposite party as per their written reply in present complaint in para 4 has submitted that the said tubewell has already been released and cost also stand paid to the complainant in compliance to previous orders dated 24.1.2017 of this Commission.
12. The complainant in the present complaint prayed for compensation and to take appropriate stern action against respondents for suffering false statement in writing by opposite party no.1 and giving false affidavit by opposite party no.5.
13. From the above details of the case we see that present complaint has been filed in continuation of the previous complaint no.CC/225/2016 filed by the complainant. It has already been decided by this Commission vide orders dated 24.1.2017 which has duly been complied with by the opposite parties.
14. The main dispute in the present complaint is regarding authenticity of some of the documents/evidences submitted by the opposite parties. Complainant alleged that these documents/evidences of the opposite parties are false whereas opposite parties claimed it be correct as per record of their department.
15. So, thorough scrutiny/examination of these documents/evidences shall be required alongwith record of the department to decide the matter. This Commission cannot adjudicate this complaint in the summary trial. Moreover, the complainant had already availed the required/necessary relief in the case of previous complaint. So we are of the considered opinion that present complaint is not maintainable in this Commission.
16. In view of aforesaid discussions, facts and circumstance of the case, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
17. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
18 . Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Kiranjit Kaur Arora)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu) (R.S.Sukhija)
February 06, 2023 Member Member
*MK*
