Complainant Hardev 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 release the Tubewell connection in his favour. The opposite parties may also be directed to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-  on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has deposited an amount of Rs.33,367/- with the opposite party no.4 for getting the agricultural connection for irrigating his land on 24.12.1991 vide receipt No.597 and also deposited another amount of Rs.880/- on the same day  vide receipt no.095 under ARTC Scheme. He has completed all the requisite formalities for getting tubewell connection in his name, but the opposite parties have failed to release the Tubewell connection in his favour without any reasonable cause or excuse within the prescribed period. He approached to the opposite party no.4 with the request to release the Tubewell connection in his favour but the opposite parties always procrastinating the matter pending with one or the other pretext. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has suffered mental and physical harassment from the hands of the opposite parties. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 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 complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; the present complaint is not maintainable being time barred and no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant  applied for tubewell connection vide A & A No.16125 dated 24.12.1991 as per rules and regulations framed by the department and submitted jamabandi for 13 kanal 1 marla showing himself as Kashatkar on land of wakf board since 1972-73. As per record the complainant was intimated vide memo no.2026 dated 17.10.2011 to submit fard haqiat of land more than one acre in his name as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties. The complainant submitted fard haqiat of land measuring 8 kanals 1 marla in his name issued by the revenue department on 29.11.2011. Then his case for release of connection was got sanctioned from the competent authority. In the meantime one Kuldip Singh son of Kartar Singh village Lakhan Khurd registered a complaint through proper channel against the complainant that complainant is not owner of the land in which power connection is going to be released. The enquiry of the complaint was made by the Addl SE PSPCL Batala and the Addl SE PSPCL Batala issued directions vide memo no.132 dated 9.6.2015 to the Sub Div. official Kalanaur not to release the tubewell connection on Wakf board land in the name of the complainant, as per the direction of the above said officials the tubewell connection of the complainant has been withheld. The opposite party has no personal interest in the matter in dispute, neither the officials of the opposite party have any enmity with the complainant nor any litigation is pending between the parties. The complainant has only deposited Rs.22,500/- vide receipt no.597/3344 dated 10.9.2013 instead of Rs.33,367/- against demand notice no.1410 dated 22.7.2013. The jamabandi submitted by the complainant shows ownership of one kanal 14 marla only in his name rest land shown ownership of Wakf board which is 13 kanals 1 marla, whereas the rules and regulations of the department the connection only released to the ownership of one killa is necessary. This is the main reason in the delay of release of tubewell connection of the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Khazan Singh S.D.O. PSPCL Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; 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.

7.      We find that the complainant did deposit the two nos. of demanded amounts vide Receipt nos. Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 on 24.12.1991 for release of the Tube well Connection in his name that somehow was not released by the OP Corporation since he submitted the title to Agricultural Land of 13K-01M as ‘cultivator’ only and not as ‘owner’ that was mandatorily required for a minimum of 08 K (one Acre) of  Agricultural Land as an eligibility criterion. And, when the complainant in response to the OP memo # 2026 dated 17.10.2011 (Ex.OP5) submitted the Revenue Fard for the Agricultural Land of 08K-01M dated 29.11.2011(Ex.OP6); the release of Power connection was withheld/refused at the behest of the OP Addl. S.E. (Ex.OP7) of 09.06.2015 (who held the related inquiry) upon receipt of the third party ‘complaint’ of one Kuldip Singh (S/o Kartar Singh) and that has turned the demand notice # 1410 of 22.07.2013 for Rs.22,500/- as redundant. Further, the OP Corporation has failed to produce the enquiry report of the Addl. S.E. withholding the release of Tube-well connection in question and how the OP Corporation is entitled to inquire into the ‘Title’ of  Agricultural Land at the face of the Fard Haqiat duly issued by the Land Revenue authorities. Under the circumstances, as sample-trailed above, we find that refusal/ non-release of the tube well connection to the present complainant is comprised of ‘arbitrariness’ coupled with ‘unfair trade practice’ with a liberal mix of ‘deficiency in service’.      

8.       In the light of the all above, we are of this considered view that this complaint can best disposed off by way issuance of directions to the parties  and hence we order and direct the titled OP service providers to release the impugned Tube well Power Connection to the complainant within 60 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders in terms of the Demand Notice 1410 of 22.07.2013 (Ex.OP8) the demanded amount somehow already stand duly deposited vide Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 of 24.12.1991. However, the complainant is also directed to gracefully execute his part of the connection-release contract/ exercise as an allottee ‘consumer’. 

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)

February, 11 2016.                                      Member.

*MK*