Complainant Narinder 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 quash the demand notice memo no.505 dated 07.07.2016 for Rs.1,16,597/- for installation of tube well connection. Opposite parties be further directed to install tubewell connection as per demand notice memo no.314 dated 13.12.2010 vide which he had already deposited amount of Rs.17,500/- alongwith compensation for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him due to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he applied for tubewell connection before the opposite parties vide receipt no.243 and deposited requisite amount of Rs.270/- dated 4.4.1997 for the purpose of irrigation of his agriculture land/fields. In the year 2010, Punjab State Electricity Board (now)
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. launched a scheme of tubewell connections for ex-serviceman on the priority basis. He had also availed the abovesaid scheme and concerned department of the opposite parties issued receipt no.249 of Rs.1730/- dated 6.4.2010 to him. Thereafter, the concerned department of the opposite parties issued demand notice of Rs.17,500/- to him for installation of tubewell connection. As per the demand notice issued by the opposite parties, he deposited the amount of Rs.17,500/- vide receipt no.314 dated 13.12.2010. After a few days of depositing the amount of Rs.17,500/- as per demand notice, he approached the opposite parties for the installation of the tubewell connection, but the opposite parties kept on lingering on the genuine request on the one pretext or the other and had not installed the tubewell connection till date without any cause. He has further pleaded that the opposite parties had again issued demand notice of Rs.1,16,597/- vide memo No.505 dated 01.07.2016 in his name, whereas he had already deposited amount of Rs.17,500/- but the opposite parties have again send the demand notice dated 1.07.2016 of Rs.1,16,597/- after the six years of the depositing of amount of previous demand notice which is totally un-procedural and against law. He had many times approached and requested the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned memo and to install tubewell connection as per demand notice but all in vain. A legal notice dated 30.8.2016 was also served upon the opposite parties but o no use. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. First complaint has been dismissed in default vide order dated 10.5.2017 and no other complaint has earlier been filed nor pending or decided previously by this Hon’ble Forum. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has no locus standi to file the false and frivolous complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the demand notice of Rs.17,500/- has been issued by the opposite parties to the complainant and the complainant has deposited the same. Thereafter the complainant was asked to got aware about the place/Killa Number where he wants to get install the Tubewell connection, but the complainant had shown hesitation and has also given in writing that the dispute regarding the joint land between the complainant and his brothers is in existence and the partition of the same has not been effected so far. So his connection is kept as pending until the resolve of dispute regarding the land. Thereafter in the year 2017, the complainant has approached to the opposite parties for the release of Tubewell connection. On this, the opposite parties have demanded Rs.1,16,597/- from the complainant. But on this, the complainant has filed the earlier first complaint which was got dismissed in default by this Ld.Forum. The complainant has earlier filed Consumer Complaint but later on he did not peruse with the same as he was fully aware that he was on wrong doer and on account of that his complaint was dismissed in default. Now the complainant in order to harass and victimize the opposite parties has filed this false and frivolous complaint. The demand of the opposite parties amounting to Rs.1,16,597/- is legal, valid and genuine one, as now the rates of all the materials have been increased. Moreover at the time of earlier installation of Tubewell connection in the year 2013, there was no scheme of separate Transformer of each individual holder of Tubewell connection, but now there is policy of the opposite parties that the Transformer is must for each Tubewell connection holder. The complainant takes benefit of his own wrongs. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.
5. Sh.Parmesh Kumar S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1 alongwith other document Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-5 and closed 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 ex-serviceman agriculturist resident of Fato Chak Narot Jaimal Singh, Gurdaspur) had applied for a New Tube-well Electric Connection on 04.04.1997 (under the reserved ex-serviceman quota) to irrigate his share in the ancestral Agricultural Lands. The OP Corporation issued him Receipt # 1730 dated 06.04.2010 and also issued him a demand notice for Rs.17,500/- that he deposited on 13.12.2010 vide Receipt # 314. However, the applied for Tube-well Connection was not released and somehow got further delayed with the result that the demand notice for an additional amount of Rs.1,16,597/- was issued vide memo # 505 on 01.07.2016 giving prompt to the present complaint. Further, the complainant has alleged to have been unnecessarily harassed by the opposite party service providers, for ulterior motives, for full eight years starting from the date of deposit of demand money of Rs.17,500/- (by him) on 13.12.2010.
7. Further, we find that the complainant has satisfactorily and sufficiently proved his allegation contented complaint vide his evidentiary affidavit (Ex.C1/A) and other primary documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7; whereas the OP Corporation has filed its SDO’s affidavit (Ex.OP1) deposing therein that the complainant has himself requested for deferment of Tube-well installation since his ancestral land had been under dispute amongst the legal heirs and thus section 145 of CRPC was invoked there as evidenced vides the OP produced (Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5). We find that the requests were date-recorded on 03.06.2013 and section 145 CRPC invoked vide the PS Narot Jaimal Singh’s CO Orders dated 06.10.2012. However, the OP deposition does not disclose the requested period of deferment of connection release and instead have straightway issued demand of Rs.1,16,597/- as on 01.07.2016 and that disentitles them to alter/enhance its demand to release the Tube-well Connection and in the absence of cogent cum collateral evidence the lone 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.
8. 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. We are also strengthened in our above opinion by virtue of the NCDRC Orders in Revision Petition # 3742 (2008 1 WBLR 243: 2008(4) ALT 12: 2007(2) CPC 713) stating therein that the additional demand (for release of power-connection) not issued within the specified time limit (after receipt of test-report and initial demand amount) is liable to be quashed. 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.
9. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Corporation Service Providers to set-aside the impugned demand of Rs.1,16,597/- with immediate effect and release the applied for fresh Tube-well Power Connection to the present complainant besides to pay him Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation 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 filing of the present/ instant complaint till actually paid.
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)
May,18 2018 Member
*MK*
