Complainant Balwant Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to release the Tubewell connection in his name. Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties and also on account of delay in releasing the Tubewell connection, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had applied for electric Tubewell connection in his land for agriculture purpose on 9.12.1997 vide application No.1247 AP and vide A &A Number 391 and he has completed all the formalities of the opposite parties for release of Tubewell connection for agriculture purpose of 5 BHP. Thereafter, the opposite parties have issued Demand Notice to him bearing No.285 dated 11.3.2013 and demanded Rs.77,489/- + Rs.500/- from him and he deposited the same with opposite parties. But on the contrary, the opposite parties have not released the Tubewell connection in his favour. Thereafter he approached to the opposite parties many times and requested the opposite parties no.2 to 4 to release the Tubewell connection in his name but they always put the matter pending with one or the other pretext. The act of the opposite parties not to release the tubewell connection in his name is illegal, null and void and against the law and instructions and according to law the opposite party is bound to release the Tubewell connection within 1 week from the complying of demand notice. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply submitting therein that the complainant had applied for getting new tubewell connection in the year 1997 in general category; thereafter he made an application on 23.11.2011 to the opposite party’s department for installation of this new tubewell connection. It was also admitted that for the installation of this tubewell connection an estimate was sanctioned and demand notice No.285 dated 11.03.2013 for Rs.77,489/- and for Rs.500/- was issued to the complainant. He has deposited the amount as mentioned in the demand notice issued by the opposite party department but the complainant has failed to complete all the requisite formalities for the installation of the disputed tubewell connection. It was again submitted that the spot where the tubewell connection was to be installed, was inspected by the then SDO Sh.Mangal Singh on 10.06.2013 who made his report on the Test Report given by the complainant that there was no tubewell bore for the installation of tubewell connection. He also inspected that there is no room for the installation of the tubewelll connection. He also mentioned in his inspection report that there is no fitting of switch, starter of tubewell connection etc. It has also been mentioned in the report that Room/Kotha, Bore, Switch, Starter which has been shown by the complainant belongs to the land of his brother. As such he declared the Test Report of this tubewell connection fail. In order to rectify these defects, a notice vide memo No.861 dated 13.6.2013 was issued to the complainant through post who paid no heed to it. Another notice No.891 dated 28.06.2013 was again issued as reminder to the complainant but he again failed to rectify the defects of his Test Report. Thereafter a letter bearing Memo No.96- dated 19.07.2013 was sent to the Naib Tehsildar Sri Hargobindpur in order to get the report of ownership of the site where the tubewell connection was to be installed. The report was given by the officials by mentioning that the site was visited and a tubewell bore is running in land bearing Khasra No.19R/9(8-0) and as per the record, Girdawari of this land is running in the name of Sarabjit Singh, Meaning thereby that this land is owned and possessed by Sh.Sarabjit Singh and is not in the possession of complainant. Due to this reason connection could not be released to the complainant in time. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
- Complainant has tendered into evidence documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C40, Ex.C50 to Ex.C52, his own affidavit Ex.C41, affidavit of Kulwant Singh Ex.C42 and of Baljit Singh Ex.C43, Photographs Ex.C44 to Ex.C49 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Lakhwinder Singh S.D.O. of the opposite parties has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 along with other document Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP8, affidavit of Sh.Manjit Singh Patwari Halqa Village Nurpur Ex.OP9 and his report is Ex.OP10, affidavit of Smt.Narinder Kaur Ex.OP11 alongwith her power of attorney Ex.OP12 and affidavit of Sh.Joginder Singh Ex.OP13 and closed the evidence.
6. We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. We observe that the OP Corporation have admittedly issued Demand Notice (Ex.C15) # 285 dated 11.03.2013 for Rs.77,489/- (plus Rs.500/-) and have since duly received/ accepted the amount (Ex.C22 & Ex.C23) duly deposited by the complainant. It also stands affirmatively proved on record (Ex.C3 to Ex.C14 & Ex.C21, Ex.C37 & Ex.C38) that the complainant has been the co-owner/co-sharer of the lands that shall be cultivated/watered via media the Tube-Well to be electrified with the Power connection in question and being the subject matter of the present complaint. We find that the one and the only hesitation (Affidavit Ex.OP1) to the OP corporation has been that the Tube well ‘site-location’ has been in the ‘physical’ possession (Ex.OP7 to Ex.OP10) of the other co-owner Sarabjit Singh (Narinder Kaur wife) etc and they have raised serious objections Ex.OP11 to the complainant’s getting the Tube well installed in the land area under their possession. We find that first the objecting co-owners were agreeing (Ex.C3 & Ex.C4 to Ex.C14) to the proposed installation of the Tube well at the selected (proposed) site but subsequently the consent was retracted/ withdrawn (Ex.OP11) and in the meantime the complainant had deposited the hefty ‘security’ and had also incurred other collateral expenses. Further, it is the Fard Jamanbandi that determines ‘title & ownership’ and not the khasra Girdawri that names the ‘cultivator’ only. The complainant’s name finds continued mention in the Fards of all previous Jamanbandi years (Ex.OP8 & Ex.C50 to Ex.C52) and as such he enjoys ‘continuing’ co-ownership even his name getting struck off from the khasra girdawris that simply shows that he has stopped himself cultivating his share in jointly co-owned khasras (of lands). For clarity on the subject we determine that the complainant being the co-owner continues to remain legally entitled to get the Tube well (for watering his share in the lands) installed but not at the site in the ‘possession’ of the other co-owners without the ‘express’ consent, had first (preferably in writing) for common water resources. Thus, the complainant must either procure the consent of the co-owner Sarabjit Singh (Narinder Kaur wife) etc for installation/release of Power Connection at the selected site (under their possession) or select an alternative Tube-well Site under his own possession to let the OP corporation release the awaited ‘power connection’ failing which it shall be liable to refund the security in the interest of equity and natural justice.
8. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the complainant to arrange and submit (within 45 days from the date of these orders) the co-owner’s consent or an alternative installation-site under his possession to the OP service providers who in turn shall release the Power Connection (in question) within 30 days of the receipt of the above consent or alternative site from the complainant. However, the OP Corporation shall refund the deposited Security in full at the express demand of the complainant had in writing within 30 days of the receipt of such request otherwise the security amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the present adjudication till actually paid.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
August 20, 2015 Member.
*MK*
