Complainant Bua Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to change the connection bearing no.C-212 in his name. He has further requested that opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by him and has also claimed Rs.5,000 as litigation expenses all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had got one tubewell connection bearing No.C-212 of 5 HP from Charan Singh son of Sher Singh by way of transfer by mutual understanding. After getting the said tubewell connection he had applied for transfer the same in his name at PSPCL Purana Shalla and deposited the requisite fee vide receipt bearing No.D-77590 dated 29.6.2005 and cleared all the previous bills. It was pleaded that no action has been taken on the request of the complainant and till date the above said connection is running in the name of previous owner. It was further pleaded that complainant had moved so many applications to higher officials also but the efforts made by the complainant all in vain. It was also pleaded that almost nine years have been past and the complainant regularly knocking the door of the employees of the department for getting his work done. It was pleaded that complainant few days back approached the office of PSPCL Purana Shall and asked about the status of his file but he was stunned on getting their reply that his file had been misplaced somewhere and he has to apply again for change of name. It was further pleaded that all this happened due to the careless attitude of the concerned authorities. It was also pleaded that he is the consumer of the opposite parties when he had deposited the requisite fee for change of connection in his name and got the receipt. It was pleaded that it was the duty of the opposite parties to give proper services to their consumer but they failed to do so, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and complaint is time barred. On merits, it was admitted that complainant had applied for transfer of tubewell connection in question in his name which was existing in the name of Charan Singh son of Sher Singh in the year 2005. It was stated that complainant was asked to complete all the formalities for transfer the connection in his name but he had failed to complete the same and kept mum for 10 years and filed this false and frivolus complaint against the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.
- Opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurnam Singh A.A.E. Ex.OP-1 alongwith documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.
- 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. From the pleadings and evidence on record it is clear that the complainant deposited the requisite fee vide receipt bearing No.D-77590 dated 29.6.2005 and applied for transfer of the tubewell connection bearing account no.C-212 in the name of Charan Singh to the name of complainant and as such has hired the services of the opposite parties and is a consumer of the opposite parties. It is the case of the complainant that despite the deposit of requisite fee and making requests opposite parties have not transferred the tubewell connection in his name.
8. On the other hand opposite parties have admitted that the complainant had applied for transfer of tubewell connection in his name. The counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant was asked to complete all the formalities for transfer of the connection in his name but he failed to complete the same.
9. From the entire above discussion we are of this considered view that it is a fit case which can be decided by giving directions to the parties. Hence we dispose off this complaint and direct the opposite parties to issue a fresh notice within 15 days from the receipt of copy of order giving all the details and formalities to be complied with by the complainant for getting the connection transferred in his name. The complainant is also directed to comply with the notice and if found eligible the opposite parties are directed to transfer the connection in his name within 30 days of the compliance of notice by the complainant. Disposed off accordingly. No order as to cost.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
June 29, 2015 Member.
*YP*
