Complainant Amolak 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 release the tubewell connection alongwith Rs.2,00,000/- as damages and litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that as per the scheme formulated by the opposite parties, in year 2012, he had applied for getting the tubewell connection in order to irrigate and cultivate his land  and deposited the requisite amount with the opposite parties. At the time of apply of the tubewell connection, he completed all the formalities as demanded/as per the requirements of the opposite parties. Thereafter, in year 2017, Jarnail Singh official of the opposite party visited/survey his land for the purpose of installation of tubewell but the opposite party had not released the connection or electric supply to him. He has next pleaded that now it had been transpired that the opposite parties had released other tubewell connections to the inhabitants of the locality who had applied the tubewell connection after the date of apply of the tubewell connection by complainant. He started request to the opposite parties to release the electric supply of tubewell connection in his land but the opposite parties were lingering on the matter by one way or the other and in year 2018 the opposite parties also issued the tubewell connections to the other persons.  He had also moved various application to the opposite parties for the installation of the tubewell connection but all in vain. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

 3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint with intention to harass the opposite parties; the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately; the present complaint is not maintainable; the complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant had applied for tubewell connection under General Category on 16.4.2007 and opposite parties had released the connection under the General Category upto 1.1.1998. It was next submitted that the opposite parties released the tubewell connection under General Category to those consumers who had given the option. Moreover, no option was ever given by the complainant to the opposite parties for getting the tubewell connection in dispute. The opposite parties have no enmity with the complainant and still ready to release the tubewell connection to the complainant as per his turn.  No application has ever made by the complainant. It was further submitted that the connection in dispute shall be released to the complainant as per his turn.  All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.   

4.       Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other document Ex.C-1.

5.      Alongwith the written statement ld.counsel for the opposite parties filed affidavit of Er.Harsh Chander, S.D.O. PSPCLtd. Ex.OP-1.

6.     Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

7.     Written arguments have been filed by both the parties.

8.     We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the complainant; written arguments as well as 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 parties for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.      As narrated above in the present complaint, the complainant has applied for tubewell connection with opposite party no.2 and deposited AP security  in the year 2012 vide receipt placed at Ex.C-1. It is alleged by complainant that in the year 2017 some official of opposite party has visited/surveyed the land of the complainant but his tubewell connection has not been released so far. But opposite party has released the tubewell connection to other applicants/consumers who has applied after her application.

10.     Opposite party in their written reply stated that the application date of complainant under General Category is 18.9.2012 whereas connections of those applicants whose date of application falls before 1.1.1998 has been released. Opposite party has also denied the visit/survey by any of their official at the site of the complainant. The main issue raised by opposite party is that the AP connection has been released to those General Category applicants who have submitted their options. But the complainant has not submitted any option. Hence the case of the complainant has not been considered for release of connection.

11.     It is surprising fact that opposite party has neither given any detail in their written reply regarding the scheme or policy of department for release of AP connections under which the options were required nor put any evidence on record. It is also not clarified by the opposite party, whether complainant has been duly informed during that period regarding any such policy of the Department.

12.     It is well understood that whenever a certain policy is issued by a department for prospective consumers or applicants and it require certain formalities to be completed by them, it becomes the duty of department to bring it to the notice of all the applicants through notice etc. so that no applicant is deprived off the benefit of the Govt. Policy. But opposite party has failed to put any such document on record in this case. It attribute to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as it can be made out that opposite party has not taken any action of this kind.

13.     During course of arguments Ld.counsel for complainant has shown the list of applicants to whom demand notice has been issued by opposite party in the year 2013 & 2014.  It also shows that these are issued under 2.5/5 acre land holding scheme. It is also made clear by complainant through an affidavit that he has also submitted all the required relevant documents to opposite party at that time with other applicants after getting the information from here and there. he has also submitted the copy of relevant record for 2.5 acres land holding alongwith affidavit. It is also alleged that his application has not been processed by opposite party alongwith other applicants for release of connection for the reasons best known to them.

14.       From the above detailed facts of the case, it can be construed that there was a certain policy for release of AP connection for applicants having 2.5/5.0 acre land holdings in the year 2013/2014 and opposite party has released AP connections to many such applicants as it is clear from list of applicants to whom demand notice has been issued. But inspite of the  submission of all the required documents to opposite party by the complainant his case  has not been considered and seems to be left over case on the part of opposite party, but  we see that it deserve to be treated at par with all other applicants to whom tubewell connection were released at that time under same policy. It is pertinent to mention that the registration of application of the complainant is of the year 2012 whereas policy has been issued in 2013/14.

15.      In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that  there is no fault at the level of complainant and he has been made to suffer by opposite party due to deficiency in service on their part.

So this case can be best disposed off by giving direction to both the parties to process the case of the complainant for release of his AP connection at par with other similar applicants under same policy to whom opposite party has already released the AP connection.

16.     Hence complainant is directed to submit the required/relevant documents again with opposite party  No.2 within 30 days of issue of orders. Further opposite parties are directed to process the case of the complainant for release of his AP connection under relevant 2.5 acre land holding policy of the Department on the receipt of document from the complainant within 120 days from date of submission of the documents by the complainant. The complaint is hereby disposed off accordingly.

17.        The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

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

   (NaveenPuri)                                                                                                                  President    

Announced:                                                           (B.S Matharu)                                                

September 09, 2022                                                    Member                             

  *MK*