Complainant Rana Sukhraj through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) has prayed for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- as damages and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a retired person and law abiding citizen and he has applied for a tubewell connection in the year 1993 for the agriculture purpose and the same was converted into the ARTC Scheme. The opposite parties issued a Demand Notice No.285 dated 19.3.2013 and as per the directions of the opposite parties, he has deposited Rs.80,724/- on 7.6.2013 vide receipt No.307/7176, but the opposite parties did not release the connection up to 19.5.2014, hence the complainant filed a consumer complaint as the opposite party was bound to release the tubewell connection within the 90 days from the issuance of demand notice. The above said complaint was decided in favour of the complainant, but during the abovesaid complaint, the opposite parties produced the documents regarding the tubewell connection, in which the opposite parties produced the documents regarding the release of material required for the release of AP Connection in dispute. In this document the opposite parties showed that they have released one PCC Pole 9 Mtr. Of Rs.2222/- plus labour 400/- total comes to Rs.2622/- and also released one ACSR for line of Rs.4830/- plus Rs.460/-, total comes to Rs.5290/- and release disk insulator of Rs.1224/-, Dead End Clumps of Rs.966/- and M.S. Channel of Rs.4675/- and GSL for earthing of Rs.1520/- and Stay Set of Rs.882/- Plus Rs.450/-, total comes to Rs.1332/- and G.S.S. Wire of Rs.1440/-, whereas the opposite party has given the disputed connection to him from the LT line which is passing nearby his tubewell room and his connection is a just a cable connection. The abovsaid material was not installed by the opposite parties, but the opposite parties illegally charged the abovesaid amount which total comes to Rs.19,069/- and also charged the excess establishment charges @ 16% and service tax at the rate of 12.5% on the total amount. The whole act and conduct of the opposite parties itself shows deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  He approached the opposite parties and requested them to deduct the excess charged amount but of no use. He has also pleaded that previously he filed a complaint before this Hon’ble Forum and he has already been released tubewell connection by opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply through the counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is time barred and no cause of action has accrued to complainant against the opposite parties. On merits, it was submitted that complainant has got tubewell connection from opposite parties under ARTC Scheme. The complainant applied for tubewell connection in the year 1993 for the agriculture purpose and the same was converted into the ARTC Scheme. The demand notice was rightly issued to complainant and after the deposit of requisite amount the tubewell connection has been released to complainant.  It was incorrect that complainant was given connection from L.T. Line, rather complainant has been given connection from 11 KV line. There was an existing 11 KV line and a transformer was installed on 11 KV pole near the site where at present tubewell connection of complainant is installed. The proposed site for tubewell connection as per the record of opposite party was different than the site where the tubewell connection of complainant is installed. This makes it clear that after the passing of estimate complainant in connivance with the contractor to whom contract under ARTC Scheme was given by PSPCL has shifted his site from the original place and by doing this if any material was saved by contractor, opposite party cannot be burdened for that because the opposite party has to give a fix amount to contractor as per tender under ARTC Scheme. It was again clarified here that after the tender if any site is shifted by any consumer in consent with contractor of opposite party, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for that. It was further submitted that complainant previously filed complaint before this Hon’ble Forum and complainant has already been released tubewell connection by opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.       

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 and of Sh.Dalbir Singh Ex.C13, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence.

5.       Sh.Ajay Kumar S.D.O. of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have thoroughly 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 OP service providers have not produced any cogent evidence of having used the complete material as requisioned by them through estimates/demand notice etc duly served upon (and the amount therein received in full) from the complainant. Also, the OP have neither confirmed nor denied in the written reply/its SDO’s affidavit of having utilized the requisioned material in full for which full payment had already been duly recovered from the complainant. Further, the OPs have alleged/contended that the site was changed by the complainant in connivance with their ‘contractor’ and as such (as per the OP Corporation’s own Rules) they are not liable to refund the amount of the unused/not-used material (left-over during the release of power connection exercise to the complainant); somehow we are not convinced with the OP’s above contention since they cannot escape first the vicarious liability of their own contractor (agent/ representative) and secondly, here the connection-site has not been changed but the connection-source stands changed, as impliedly admitted by the OP service providers by reverting to non-rebuttal of the complainant’s charge of change of distributor source. 

7.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the Opposite parties to refund the full cost of the unused material for which the complainant was charged in the estimates/demand notice (served upon and paid by him) besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid.

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

                                                                                (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                    President.

Pronounced:                                                           (Jagdeep Kaur)

September, 24 2015                                                         Member.

*MK*