Complainant Jasbir 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 issue the Demand Notice to him and then release the Tubewell connection in his favour under Border Area Scheme. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that in the year 1988, the applications were invited by the opposite party no.4 at the instruction of the opposite parties no.1 to 3 for applying for getting Electric Tubewell connections under Border Area Scheme. Since he is residing at Village Talwandi Goraya which is remotely Border Area as such he has applied for getting Tubewell connection for irrigating his land on 31.5.1988 under the Scheme of Border Area. He had deposited the requisite fee with the opposite party no.4 for getting Tubewell connection vide Book No.012614, Receipt No.376. At the time of depositing the said fee, he has completed all the requisite formalities with the opposite parties and it was assured by the opposite parties that as and when the opposite parties no.1 to 3 have sanctioned the Tubewell Connections and then they will release the Tubewell connection in his favour. The opposite parties have issued letter dated 17.5.1989 to him to again deposit the requisite documents in the office of opposite party no.4. He in compliance of the said letter had again deposited the requisite documents with the opposite party no.4 and at that time it was allured by the opposite parties to him that since the said scheme is for the entire farmers of Punjab State and it will consume some period to release the Tubewell Connections. It was further allured by the opposite parties that the Tubewell connections would be released on the basis of Seniority and as and when Tubewell connections would be installed under the said scheme, then opposite parties would also install his Tubewell connection. Thereafter the opposite parties did not release the Tubewell connection in his favour and he remained under impression that the Tubewel connections have been released so far under this Scheme. After waiting for long period, he has moved an application to the opposite party no.4 and opposite party no.4 vide its reply bearing memo no.886 dated 6.6.2012 stated that his application has been registered in the Service Register bearing application no.14377 dated 31.5.1988 and the next page of Service Register has been torn and due to that reason, the next proceedings of the case would not be find out. This clearly shows the malafide intention on the part of the opposite parties. It was not his fault but it was the duty of the opposite parties to maintain the record which is public record. Thereafter again he has sought information from the opposite party no.4 with regard to the status of his application under Right to Information Act. Opposite party no.4 has given reply to the application Under Right to Information Act vide reply bearing Memo No.777 dated 5.5.2015 that the all person who have applied for Tubewell Connection under Border Area Scheme, have been issued Demand Notices who have complied with the terms and conditions of the Department and who have not complied with the terms ad conditions, have not been issued Demand Notices and their cases were rejected. Actually, he has completed all the requisite formalities with the opposite parties and have complied with the terms and conditions of the opposite parties but inspite of that the opposite parties have not released the Tubewell connection in his favour. Thereafter, he has moved various applications to the opposite parties dated 18.6.2012, 9.1.2013, 22.8.2013, 18.2.2014 and 31.10.2014 to do the needful in the matter in hand, but of no use. Thereafter he approached the opposite parties and requested them either to issue the Demand notice or to release the Tubewell Connection in his favour but they refused to admit his claim. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties he has suffered great mental agony ad he has suffered mental as well as 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. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint with the intention to take the undue advantage of the process of law; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately; the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complaint is time barred and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant has applied for tubewell connection in the year 1988, but the complainant moved an application for getting the information of the alleged connection and the opposite party replied the same on 6.6.2012, meaning thereby by the complainant after 24 years. The complainant also sent an application to the opposite party under the RTI Act. The opposite parties specifically mention in the reply dated 6.6.2012 and 5.5.2015 that the demand notice have been issued to all the applicants who applied the tubewell connection in the year 1988 or who have produced the test report, the connection those consumer had been released, but who did not comply the demand notice, the applications of those candidates have been rejected and no application is pending uptill 31.3.1991. It was further submitted that in the year 1988, the area of Dera Baba Nanak was remained effected by the flood, hence the record of the Sub Division, if be got damaged, the same is not the intentional but due to the natural calamity. The opposite parties have no personal grudge with the complainant and they did not know the complainant party. 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 his own affidavit Ex.C1, along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Jagtar 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 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully examined the available evidence on the records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We find that the present dispute erupted on account of non-issuance (sans even any intimation) of Tube-well Connection in response to the complainant’s application dated 31.05.1988. There has been no appropriate reply and/or information by the OP Corporation throughout the intervening period to the complainant till he finally sought information under the RTI Act’ 2005 vides # 4365 of 24.04.2015. To his shocking surprise the complainant was advised under the RTI (supra) Ex.OP2 that Tube-well connections (applied in the year 1988) stand duly issued to all the demand noticee, who in response, did file their ‘Test Reports’ and all such applications received by 31.03.1991 stand duly disposed of.
7. The complainant has vehemently denied having ever received any ‘Demand Notice’ as alleged by the OP Corporation who has also failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove the same. We also set aside the OP’s objection of ‘limitation’ barring the present complaint since the ‘cause of action’ being recurring in nature, remained ‘active & alive’ and never subsided through the intervening period. We are duly supported in our above legal proposition by virtue of decisions of the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi in RP # 3835 of 2010 titled Sohal Motors vs. SGPC & Anr and also of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in N K Modi vs. Fair air Engineers Pvt. Ltd.; ….. is a continuing cause of action and the question of the complaint being barred by limitation does not arise. Further, the OP Corporation has itself admitted through its letters # 886 of 06.06.2012 (Ex.C3) & # 1289 of 18.08.2011 (Ex.C5) that the fate of the complainant’s Tube well application cannot be advised since the related Ledger page stands torn off. And, that itself proves ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the OP Corporation and holds them guilty of civil wrong/ misconduct under the Act. We find that the complainant has somehow demonstrated grave lethargy in regular follow up of his application for Tube well connection and that has also contributed to the inordinate delay and the present work-out.
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 OP service providers to issue the requisite Demand Notice to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders and shall further release the applied for Tube-Well Power connection within 03 months of receipt of the Test Report etc from the complainant who shall duly comply with the pre-requisites etc as desired by the OP service providers who are also directed to keep the same to just & minimum requisite.
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)
November 09, 2015 Member.
*MK*
