Kamaljit Singh complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that his complaint may be accepted with costs and directions be issued to the opposite parties to release the tubewell connection to him and also pay Rs.20,000/- as damages and compensation for harassment and inconvenience caused by the opposite parties to him without any fault on his part in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an agriculturist by profession and his father was owner of land measuring 2.5 Acres which is situated in the revenue estate of Vill. Rawal Tehsil & Distt. Gurdaspur. It was pleaded that complainant applied for release of 5 BHP electric tubewell connection in his name for irrigation purpose of his land and completed all the formalities and also deposited security of Rs.1500/- vide receipt No.553 Book No.D-59357 dated 04.04.2007 with the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that tubewell connections were issued by the opposite parties to the persons who applied with the complainant but opposite parties did not issue the tubwell connection to the complainant intentionally and willfully whereas complainant approached the opposite parties many times but the opposite parties putting off the matter with one pretext or the other. It was also pleaded that complainant applied for new tubewell connection on 04.04.2007 whereas Sukhjit Singh resident of Vill. Bariar Tehsil and Distt. Gurdaspur applied for the new tubewell connection on 13.05.2016, Tarlok Singh resident of village applicant for tubewell connection on 28.02.2013 and opposite parties released the same to him on 16.05.2016. Sukhwinder Kaur resident of Vill. Narda also applied for tubewell connection on 28.02.2013 and opposite parties released the same to her on 26.05.2016 and Gurjot Singh resident of Vill. Bbabra also applied for tubewell connection on 28.02.2013 and opposite parties released the same to him on 30.06.2016 but the opposite parties did not release the same to the complainant. It was next pleaded that complainant applied for new tubewell connection for irrigation purpose as there was no facility to his land and the act of the opposite parties of not releasing the tubewell connection is illegal, null & void and opposite parties are bound to release the same to the complainant as he had approached many times to the opposite parties for release of connection, hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as complainant is not entitled to the connection under the scheme because under the scheme only farmers having agricultural less land than 2.5 acres are entitled to connection and as such complainant is not entitled to connection applied in April, 2007. That complainant is estopped by his own acts and conduct to file the present complaint because complainant had mentioned in complaint that he is owner of land measuring 2.5 acres in Village Rawal Gadhrian while he had to state that he is owner of land less than 2.5 acres and every applicant had to submit affidavit stating that he has agricultural land in Punjab less than 2.5 acres and it also mentioned in the affidavit that he has no other tubewell connection in throughout Punjab but complainant did not give said affidavit regarding these facts till the end of the said Scheme i.e. before 2014. Complaint is time barred. On merits, it was admitted that complainant applied for release of 5 BHP tubewell connection in April, 2007 but it was denied that complainant had completed all required formalities. Complainant had not submitted required affidavit, uptill the end of the said scheme. It was stated that the tubewell connections were issued to the other persons who completed required formalities and also submitted their required affidavits but complainant did not complete the required formalities uptill the end of the scheme. It was denied that opposite parties did not issue connection to the complainant intentionally and willfully. It was further stated that tubewell connection was not released to the complainant as he had failed to complete the required formalities because complainant seems not to be in need of connection because variety of land of complainant is ‘Nehry’. It was also stated that opposite parties are not ready to release the connection in question even if the complainant fulfills the required formality and tenders his required affidavit like other applicants now, because the alleged scheme has already ended. It was next stated that complainant could not get benefit of his own wrong/mistake. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A along with documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
- Counsel for the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Pritpal Singh S.D.O. Ex.OP-1along with documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
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 Village: Rawal Gadrian, Gurdaspur) had applied for a New 5 BHP Electric Connection on 04.04.2007 with the OP Corporation by depositing an amount of Rs.1500/- vide Receipt # 553 Book # D-59357 of 04.04.2007 under Less than 2.5 Acre Irrigation Scheme. However, the OP Corporation allegedly delayed and deferred release of the Tube-well Connection to the present complainant whereas its favored applicants down the line were issued out of turn Tube-well Connection allotments. The OP Corporation had somehow deferred the receipt of demand-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 prevalent situation, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking the final orders directing the OPs to accept the installation amount and to release the new connection upon completion of the related collaterals.
7. Further, the complainant has alleged to have been unnecessarily harassed by the opposite party service providers, for ulterior motives, for full ten years starting from the date of deposit of earnest money of Rs.1500/- (by him) on 04.04.2007. The OP Corporation in its written reply has questioned the category-eligibility of the present complainant pertaining to his land holding under 2.5 acres. However, we find that the Fard Jamanbandi as submitted by the complainant exhibits the complainant land-holding as 19 Kanal i.e., 01 Kanal less than the limit of 2.5 Acre thus awarding him the requisite eligibility.
8. Finally, we find that the complainant has sufficiently proved his allegation contented complaint vide his evidentiary affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) and other primary documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2; whereas the OP Corporation has simply filed its written statement vide which only holding-eligibility stands questioned. 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 prompting the present complaint comprising of the prime and other charges as levied upon the complainant by 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 to release the impugned Tube-well Connection as per the notified terms besides to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation to the complainant within a period of 30 working 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. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
JUNE 22, 2018 Member.
*YP*
