Complaint No: 130 of 2022.

   Date of Institution: 23.06.2022.

            Date of order:19.03.2024.

Palwinder Singh Son of Nahar Singh, resident of Village Bariar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

                                                                                                                  .....Complainant.

                                      VERSUS

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Head of the Department, Chief Managing Director, The Mall Patiala. Pin Code – 147001.

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Superintendent Engineer, Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143521.

3.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Urban Division Gurdaspur, through its S.D.O. Pin Code – 143521.

4.       Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Pathankot. Pin Code – 145001.

5.       Soil Conservation Officer, Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143521.                                                                                                       

                                                                                                      .....Opposite parties.                                                                                                                                                                               

                            Complaint U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act.

Present:For the Complainant: Sh.S.J.S. Bajwa, Advocate.

           For the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3: Sh.Suvir Mahajan, Advocate.

           For the Opposite Parties No.4 & 5: Sh.Harcharan Singh Kang, S.D.S.O.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

          Palwinder Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against P.S.P.C. Ltd. and others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant has applied for Tubewell connection under the Drip Irrigation Priority Scheme in the office of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 in the year 2017 after getting Inspection report, Project report, Technical details from the opposite parties No. 4 and 5. It was pleaded that the complainant had spent huge amount of money for installation of pipe lines to obtain requisite certificate from Soil Conservation Department and purchased 5 HP Motor. The requisite estimate as per routine was sanctioned by the Senior XEN, Gurdaspur Division. The complainant has thus spent about Rs.50,000/-  for this purpose. The complainant has installed the Drip / Micro Sprinkler System in his land measuring One Hectare comprised in rect. No. 19, 20 and killa No. 4, 5 and 1 at village Bariar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. It was further pleaded that the joint inspection of Drip / Micro Sprinkler System installed by the complainant was made by Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Gurdaspur, Deputy Director Horticulture, Pathankot and other officer of Soil Conservation Department on dated 02.03.2017 and issued necessary certificate. It was further recommended that beneficiary i.e. the complainant can get the facility on top priority of electric tubewell connection for the project in his farms as per Punjab State Electricity Board Letter No. 2965 / SSM  414 dated 11.01.2007 of 5 HP Motor for this purpose. Copy of the inspection report was sent to the complainant and opposite party No. 2 etc. It was further pleaded that the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 after completion of the formalities by the complainant and opposite parties No. 4 and 5 did not issue any demand notice to the complainant. The complainant has approached the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 many times for issuing demand notice and electric tubewell connection and also written letter to the office of the opposite party No. 3 on dated 10.10.2017, but neither connection was issued nor any reply was given to the complainant by the opposite parties. It is further averred that the other consumers prior to the complainant who had applied for the tubewell connection under Chairman Quota priority much after the application of the complainant have been granted tubewell connection under this scheme. It was further pleaded that the complainant has suffered mental as well as physical harassment from the hands of the opposite parties. The complainant is an agriculturist and the complainant has installed all infrastructure for Drip / Micro Sprinkler System as required and also constructed one room and installed pipe lines in it, for which the complainant has spent huge amount, but due to the non-installation of the electric tubewell connection, the complainant is also suffering pecuniary loss and that too on account of the illegal act of the opposite parties. The amount spent on the project and deposited with the opposite parties No. 4 and 5 has not been returned to him in spite of repeated requests by the complainant. It was further pleaded that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is legally entitled for the tubewell connection under the scheme or in alternative for return of amount spent by him for this project in the land and amount deposited with the opposite parties No. 4 and 5. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to install / release the electricity tubewell connection of 5 HP under Drip Irrigation Priority Scheme in favour of the complainant OR in alternative the opposite parties may be directed to refund of Rs.50,000/- spent for getting tubewell connection by installing Drip / Micro Sprinkle System etc. alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.50,000/- on account of mental torture, physical harassment and pecuniary loss suffered by the complainant from the hands of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice and fair play.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant is not the consumer of the answering opposite parties as the complainant never applied for Drip / Micro Sprinkler System with the answering opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It was further pleaded that Letter No. 2965 / SSM 414 dated 11.01.2007 is regarding regularization of temporary tubewell connection and has nothing to do with the alleged claim of the complainant.

          On merits, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.       Upon notice, the opposite parties No.4 and 5 appeared through its S.D.S.C.O Sh. Harcharan Singh and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and no cause of action has accrued to file the present complaint against the answering opposite parties No. 4 and 5. It was pleaded that the complainant has submitted a self-declaration to the answering opposite parties No. 4 and 5 at the time of getting facilities for Drip / Micro Sprinkler System. That he will not hold responsible to the Soil Conservation Department for taking the electricity connection. So, the present complaint of the complainant may be dismissed against the answering opposite parties No. 4 and 5. It was further pleaded that the matter of the fact is that the complainant i.e. Palwinder Singh Son of Nahar Singh has applied under Central Govt. Scheme for installed the Drip / Micro Sprinkler System in their land measuring 1 Acre on Orchard / Vegetable through Soil & Water Conservation Department Gurdaspur. Under this Scheme, the Govt. has given subsidy to the complainant sum of Rs.84,874/- for this purpose and the complainant spent Rs.24,777/- only for this project not Rs.50,000/-. It was further pleaded that the Joint Inspection Report (Drip / Micro Sprinkler Project) was issued by Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Gurdaspur vide Endst. No.4068-71 dated 02.03.2017 regarding installation the Drip / Micro Sprinkler System in his Village Bariar bearing Mustil No. 19.20r Khasra No. 4, 5 and 1 measuring 1.00 Hectare area on Orchard / Vegetable through Soil Conservation Department. It was further pleaded that the Department inspected the site and the beneficiary was to get the facility on top priority of Electric Tubewell Connection for the project on his farms and recommend 5.0 HP Motor, but this office has no knowledge that the facility has been closed by the Govt. to provide top priority connection from the Electricity Department. Moreover, the complainant himself gave self-declaration to the Department of the answering opposite parties No. 4 and 5 that he will be personally responsible for the terms and condition of Soil and Water Conservation Department for taking electricity tubewell connection and also given that he will not hold the Soil Conservation Department responsible for taking the electricity connection. So, the answering opposite parties has not given any assurance for the purpose of tubewell connection to the complainant. So, the answering opposite parties No.4 and 5 are not liable to pay any amount under rule. It was further pleaded that the complainant himself submitted an application to Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Gurdaspur to avail Drip Irrigation Scheme. The said application was accepted and Conservator of Soil, Jalandhar has considered and sanctioned amount of Rs.1,09,651/- vide Letter No. 3064 dated 07.10.2016. In this regard, the complainant has submitted self-declaration. It was further pleaded that the answering opposite parties No. 4 and 5 are not responsible to issue connection of Tubewell from Electricity Department rather the complainant is liable to return the amount of Rs.84,874/- i.e. Subsidy amount which he has received from the Govt. for the project.

          On merits, the opposite parties No.4 and 5 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has placed on file Self-Declaration of Palwinder Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.C-8 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 alongwith complaint.

6.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3 has placed on file affidavit of Sh. Arun Kumar, (S.D.O, P.S.P.C. Ltd, Sub – Urban, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OPW-1to3/A alongwith reply.

7.       The opposite parties No.4 and 5 has filed documents as Ex.OP-4,5/1 to Ex.OP-4,5/2 alongwith reply. 

8.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

9.       Written arguments filed by the complainant, but not filed by the opposite parties.

10.     We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral 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 purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

11.     The present complaint has been filed by the complainant for release of tubwell connection under Drip Irrigation Priority Scheme from opposite parties No.1 to 3 or alternatively demanded the refund of Rs.50,000/- from opposite parties No.4 and 5 for the amounts incurred on installation of the system.

12.     It has been alleged that drip irrigation system was installed with the help of opposite parties No.4 and 5 for irrigation of the land but the opposite parties No.1 to 3 have not released the required tubwell connection of 5 HP under this scheme.

13.     Opposite parties No.1 to 3 have denied all the allegations and stated that the complainant has not ever applied for the electric connection under Drip/Micro Sprinkler System Scheme, hence the question of release of the connection does not arise.

14.     As far as refund of the amount incurred on the system is concerned, opposite parties No.4 and 5 also denied all the allegations and stated that actually there was a estimate of Rs.1,09,651/-, sanctioned vide letter No.3064 dated 07.10.2016  which include Rs.84,874/- as subsidy given to the complainant for installation of drip irrigation system. It has been further pleaded that the complainant has only spent Rs.24,777/-. It has also been pleaded that the whole amount including subsidy of Rs.84,874/- were spent for installing the drip irrigation system and it was completed in all respect. Further, the responsibility for getting the tubewell connection released from electricity department was on the part of the complainant only and their department has no concern for getting the tubewell connection released. The refund of the amount is not possible at all as all the system has already been installed, moreover major part of the amount has been allotted by the Govt. as subsidy.

15.     Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3 has argued that at present there is complete ban on the issuance of demand notice for release of tubewell connection under any category except ex-serviceman from 13.04.2018 as per policy issued vide C.C.No.20/2018 by PSPCL.

16.     In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not submitted any cogent evidence proving that whether he has applied for the tubwell connection with the opposite parties No.1 to 3 so he is not entitled for the said connection if not applied. Further, as the opposite parties No.4 and 5 have already got installed the required system as desired by the complainant by spending the major amount from Govt. side as subsidy. So, the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the desired amount also. The installed system is in the custody of the complainant as installed in the land of the complainant. As such we find no merit in the present complaint as complainant has failed to prove his claim.

17.     Accordingly, present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.            

18.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.

19.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                         President

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

March 19, 2024                                             Member

*YP*