Complainant Diwan Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P. Act.) to seek a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation and labour charges amount to him to the tune of Rs.2,29,900/- alongwith interest and Rs.20,000/- for litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the owner of the land measuring 8 Kanals situated in the revenue estate of village Sekhwan and he applied for the  New Electric Connection of 2 HP vide A & A No.823 dated 31.12.1991 with BA 16 52/1695 under ARTC Scheme. It was stated that opposite parties have issued a notice to him bearing memo No.640 dated 29.8.2012 whereby opposite parties have demanded the option from him whether he wants to obtain connection under the scheme of ARTC. He has duly replied to the said notice that he wants to get the electric connection under ARTC Scheme. It was stated that as per the instructions of opposite parties he deposited Rs.500/- as earnest money vide BA 16 No.195/7165 dated 12.12.2011 and thereafter opposite parties prepared the estimate for installation of the electric Tubewell in his land for a sum of Rs.78,514/-. He approached the opposite parties and requested to receive the amount of Rs.78,514/- from him and release the Tubewell  connection, but the opposite party put the matter pending with one or the other pretext and thereafter he filed complaint No.193 of 2013  dated 21.06.2013 which was  disposed of by this Forum vide its order dated 23.6.2014. Thereafter opposite parties revised his estimate from amount of Rs.78,514/- to Rs.1,29,872 and he deposited the same on 15.07.2014 to the opposite parties vide receipt No.391/11654 and complied with the order passed by this Forum but inspite of that the opposite parties have not released the tubewell connection to him. Thereafter, he filed application U/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act on 22.04.2015 and the opposite parties appear and given statement but they did not release the tubewell connection. Then he again filed an application U/s 27 of Consumer Protection Act and opposite parties appeared in the execution and thereafter the opposite parties released the tubewell connection vide SCO No.143/2433 dated 08.08.2016. The opposite parties released the tubewell connection on 19.06.2013 to Karnail Singh son of Diwan Singh resident of village Tatle, Tehsil and Distt. Gurdaspur who applied for tubewell connection on 29.12.1992 whereas he has applied for tubewell connection prior to Karnail Singh. Similarly Kirpal Singh applied for tubewell connection on 13.3.1992, Tarlok Singh son of Bawa Singh, resident of village Khan Piara applied tubewell connection on 29.4.1992, Ajit Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of village Sekhwan applied for tubewell connection on 29.6.1992, Piara Singh son of Gurbax Singh, resident of village Sekhwan applied tubewell connection on 14.7.1992, Baljit Singh son of Sulakhan Singh, resident of village Balagan applied for tubewell connection on 30.9.1992 and all the above said persons are junior to  him and opposite parties illegally released the tubewell connection in the year 2013, but with malafide intention, intentionally, deliberately, without any reasonable cause and excuse, the opposite parties has not released the tubewll connection to him in time.  He has further pleaded that according to the Punjab Govt Gaz July, 27, 2007, it was clearly mentioned in clause 4 (a) that tubewell connection should be released within 30 days to the consumer and if the opposite parties failed to release the same within 30 days, thereafter the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.100/- daily as a compensation to the consumer. In this way, the complainant is entitled to release the connection before 19.06.2013 as the opposite parties released the tubewell connection of Karnail singh on 19.6.2013 who applied for tubewell connection after him. But the opposite parties have released the tubwell connection in his favour on 8.8.2016. In this way, the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.1,12,900/- for delaying in installing the tubewell connection in his favour and opposite parties are also entitled to pay the labour cost for the installation of the tubewell connection to him to the amount of Rs.17,000/- and in this way the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.1,29,900/- to him and he also entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- on account of monetary loss as well as harassment, loss of work, mental agony. He many times requested the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.2,29,900/- to him 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 joint written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint, complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts and complaint is not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it was submitted that opposite parties has no personal interest in the matter in dispute neither the opposite parties have any enmity with the complainant nor delayed the tubewell connection of the complainant intentionally. Actually, the Green National Tribunal, Delhi had stayed all the tubewell connections and due to the direction of the abovesaid tribunals, the opposite party did not release the tubewell connection and when the tribunals grant the permission for the release of tube well connection to the department, then the department releases the tubewell connection to the complainant. It was further submitted that the complainant deliberately imposed false allegations on the complainant with the intention to drag the opposite party in the false and factitious litigation. All the remaining contents of the complaint have been denied. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

4.     Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sukhdev Raj S.D.O. Ex.OP-1 and close the evidence.

6.     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 resident of Sekhwan, Gurdaspur) had applied for a New 2 BHP Electric Connection on 31.12.1991 with the OP Corporation and opted for the related release under the ARTC Scheme in response to the OP Corp’s Memo of 29.08.2012. The OP Corporation also prepared the installation-estimate for an amount of Rs.78,514/- but somehow deferred the receipt of money from the complainant on one pretext or the other and in the meantime continued releasing connections to other similarly positioned applicants as per its own whimsical choice(s). Fed up with the then situation, the complainant filed CC # 193/ 2013 with this forum that on 23.06.2014 passed the final orders directing the OPs to accept the installation amount and to release the new connection within 30 days of the completion of the related collaterals. The complainant on 15.07.2014 did deposit the escalated installation-amount of Rs. 1,29,872/- but the OP did not release the requisite connection. Thereafter on 22.04.2015, the related execution application (U/s 27 of the Act) had to be filed to effect compliance but the same had to subsequently withdrawn at the OP’s affirmation of connection-release soon thereafter but that was not to be. The complainant had to re-file the withdrawn execution and somehow the OP Corporation did finally release the new connection on 08.08.2016 after having been in receipt of the installation amount of Rs.1,29,872/- on 15.07.2014 that otherwise he was eligible to pay Rs.78,514/- (as installation) much before the date of filing of the CC # 193 on 21.06.2013.

7.       Further, the complainant has alleged to have been unnecessarily harassed by the opposite party service providers, for ulterior motives, for full five years starting from the date of deposit of earnest money of Rs.500/- (by him) on 12.12.2011.  And, thus prompts the present complaint with the complainant claiming a sum of Rs.2,29,900/- as damages/ compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation. The claim includes Rs.1,12,900/- fixed @ Rs.100/- per day (for 37 months 19 days) in terms of the Punjab Govt. notification Gazette of 27.07.2007 + (plus) 17,000/- tube-well construction + 100,000/- for having suffered loss and harassment etc.      

8.       Finally, we find that the complainant has sufficiently proved his allegation contented complaint vide his evidentiary affidavit (Ex.C1/A) and other primary documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4; whereas the OP Corporation has simply filed its SDO’s affidavit (Ex.OP1) deposing therein that the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi had stayed the release of all new fresh connections and the complainant’s connection was routinely released upon the vacation of the same. However, the deposition does not disclose the period of non-release and name/ number of new connections delayed/ affected on account of the NGT Stay orders on fresh connections and in the absence of cogent cum collateral evidence the produced deposition amounts to a mere bald statement. The OP Corporation has also not rebutted/denied the complainant’s allegation of favoritism/out of turn (arbitrary) release of new connections to some applicants etc through some cogent and acceptable evidence.

9.      We are certainly not convinced with the defense pleadings of the OP Corporation and are further of the considered opinion that the opposite party service providers have acted in an arbitrary and unauthorized illegal manner in the present case and thus the present complainant shall be entitled to one favorable statutory award. Somehow, we find that the impugned delay resulting into enhancement of installation and other charges etc as levied upon the complainant the opposite party corporation has not been a matter of routine and also not in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per their own Marketing/Sales & Distribution of Electricity Policy as well as that formulated by the state government and the details were neither supplied to the applicant complainant nor produced before the forum during the current proceedings, as requisite.

10.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Corporation Service Providers (OP2 SDO) to pay lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) as cost and compensation to the complainant within a period of 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregated awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the instant orders till actually paid.

11.      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)

April, 11 2018.                                           Member.

*MK*