Complainant Sucha Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to release the Tubewell Connection on the basis of the security deposited by him on 26.3.1990 on the application No.5344-AP and to pay compensation to him on account of loss suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties alongwith litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he has applied for getting electric Tubewell connection to the opposite party no.2 on 26.3.1990 bearing A & A No.5344 of 3 BHP and deposited the security for getting electric tubewell connection for agricultural purpose, as there is no irrigation facility in his land. He has completed all the formalities of the opposite parties for getting the electric Tubewell connection. He has further pleaded that on the same day when he has applied for getting the electric Tubewell connection, other consumers namely Puran Singh son of Mahain Singh, resident of village Kiri Afgana, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, Mehnga Singh son of Sh.Karnail Singh, resident of village Bhet Pattan, Arjan Singh son of Sh.Teja Singh, resident of Village Khawaja Bains, Ganni son of Sh.Wadhawa, residents of village Khawaja Bains, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur have also applied for getting the electric Tubewell connection for agriculture purpose and the opposite parties have also released them the Tubewell connections. The opposite parties have released the Electric Tubewell connection to Puran Singh, Mehnga Singh, Arjun Singh and Teja Singh on the basis of the security deposited by them in the year 1990 and also got permanent the Tubewell connections of the said persons which were on the basis of Kundi connection. But on the contrary, the opposite parties have not given Electric Tubewell connection against the security being deposited by him on 26.3.1990. He has number of times approached to the opposite parties for the release of electric tubewell connection on the basis of security deposited by him on 26.3.1990 but the opposite parties put the matter pending with one pretext or the other. He has further pleaded that the opposite parties issued memo no.643 dated 27/8/2012 and stated in the memo that the opposite parties have released the Kundi connection to him against the application no.5344 AP on whose security was deposited on 26.3.1990. This fact is totally wrong as he deposited separate amount for obtaining the kundi connection to the opposite parties and opposite parties installed Kundi connection in his land and thereafter according to the instructions of the Govt. opposite parties got permanent the said Kundi connection bearing Account No.A 1552. He is owner of the land measuring 10 Acres and one electric connection is not sufficient for him for irrigating the agricultural land and due to this he applied for one kundi connection and another permanent connection. He many times requested the opposite parties to release the Tubewell connection on the basis of the application No.5344 AP but the opposite parties put the matter pending with one pretext or the other so far they have not received sanction from the higher authorities. He alongwith his son namely Rachhpal Singh went to the office of the opposite party no.2 and requested them to release the Tubewell connection but they refused to release the same. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment, so there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form. Moreover the complainant had concealed and suppressed material facts regarding earlier civil suit filed with regard to the said connection on the same subject matter regarding Tubewll Connection and he is debarred and estopped to file the present complaint on the same facts and same subject matter. The Suit Ref Sucha Singh Versus Amarjit Kaur etc. Civil Suit no.24 of 2003 decided on 11.11.2010 passed by the Court of Smt.Harpreet Kaur PCS, Civil Judge (Jr.Div) Batala and the same had attained finality and the decision is binding on the parties as per provisions and law and the provisions of consumer Protection Act are not available to the complainant again had filed the present complaint with regard to the same said connection before the Court and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score; the complainant is violated the process and making abuse of the process of law by time and again filing false and frivolous vexatious baseless, bogus cases and complainant’s just to harass the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs due to frivolous complaint. On merits, it was stated that complainant had already been granted said connection as per his Application (A & A) 5344 dated 26.03.1990 and connection was released vide SCO no.78/16781 dated 23.07.1990 in the name of the complainant after he had completed pre requisite formalities and thereafter Account No.A/1552 was given to complainant and he availed the electric facility for his Tubewell Connection till the same thereafter subsequently was sold by him to Amarjit Kaur and who had then after all requisite formalities pertaining to the connection was granted to Amarjit Kaur as per provisions and request and vide SCO No.13157/701 dated 16.12.2002, the connection was transferred in the name of Amarjit Kaur and he was allotted new account no.AP-A-1666 from the name of complainant account AP-A-1552 and now the connection is running in the name of said Amarjit Kaur vide Account No.A-1666 and the complainant filed suit with regard to the said connection but the suit was dismissed and the same was decided in the Civil Suit dated 11.11.2010. But now the complainant had filed the present complaint on same subject matter with regard to the same said connection but as per provision and law he is precluded from again filing this complaint before the Forum which is not maintainable and the same be dismissed with heavy costs. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
- Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, along with other documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Lakhwinder Singh S.D.O. of the opposite parties has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 along with other document Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence.
6. We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their 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.
7. From the pleadings and evidence on record we observe that the complainant has claimed the release of the one much-awaited 3 H.P. Tube well Power Connection against the security deposited by him on 26.03.1990 vide application # A&A 5344 alleging its non-release throughout the intervening period of 24 years whereas the other 5 H.P. Connection with A/c # A1552 pertained to (& was released against) another second application/ security duly furnished by him as being different from the one, referred to here-in-above. However, the OP service providers consistently insist that the power connection A/c # A-1552 (released on 23.07.1990) pertained to his application # A&A 5344 of 26.03.1990 and no other application/ security was ever received (by them) from the complainant and who was first apprised of this contention on 27.08.2012 vides the communiqué Ex.C2 and that also determines admissibility of the present complaint on the point of limitation. The OP service providers have produced Ex.OP7 being the copy of the records of ‘applications with status’ to support & prove its above contention that somehow does not explain as to how the ‘A-1552’ 5-H.P. Kundi Power-Connection was released against the application # A&A 5344 for the 3-H.P. Connection and that also within a period of 4 months with no other release of connection in the entire list around that point of time. We also observe that the application A&A 5344 specify 3H.P. connection whereas the released connection A-1552 has been invariably indicated as: 5 H.P. in the entire records. On the face of it, the records Ex.OP7 (with entries distanced by more than a decade but done in similar hand, ink and flow) in itself alone does not prove the release of the 5 H.P. Kundi Connection # A-1552 in response to the application # A&A 5344 for 3 H.P. General Connection. The OPs have failed to prove any other cogent evidence to prove its assertion pertaining to the release of the Connection against the application in question and thus it shall be held that the released connection pertained to the second Security furnished under the OP’s Scheme for regularization of Kundi Connections Sic. Somehow, the OP’s have been reluctant to produce the related records for obvious reasons. The other objections/pleadings as raised by the OPs do not hold water, either. The civil suit # 24 of 2003 pertained to transfer/sale of the Connection A/1552 and its adjudicatory hardly affects the present consumer complaint pertaining to non-release of connection against the application A&A-5344. Further, the CC # 514 of 2011 pertained to power connection # AP-20/6134 and the same OP have denied the release of this connection against A&A-5344 and there they never disclosed the release of A/1552 against the said application. We find the OP’s defense pleadings to be more of a desperate attempt to cover up its ‘unfair trade practice’ and own ‘deficiency in service’ rather than a transparent exhibit of ‘facts & law’. We have also studied (with the requisite ‘legal reverence’) the three superior court’s judgments as put forth by the learned counsel for the OPs and respectfully bow to the ‘propositions’ as determined therein but do not appreciate the OP counsel’s interpretation rather find its facts and ratios mismatching with that of the present complaint. In, FA # 1854/ 2006 HSCDRC titled HUDA vs. Gopal Gulati the legal issues pertained to limitation (section 24A of the Act) & retrace-back of the consumer of his surrender application and that are certainly not the issue, here. And, in NCDRC OP # 142 0f 1992 titled S. Lakshmanan vs. Indian Bank; the fact in issue was of the ‘locus standi’ of the complainant who had filed that consumer complaint on behalf of the proprietorship firm having a different proprietor and also having not disclosed all the true facts. Again, that shall not be relevant here since it is the OP who can be said to have ‘not-disclosed’ all true facts. And, finally in NCDRC FA # 533 & 534 of 1996 titled as: V P Kapoor & Ors vs. Raj Chopra & Ors; the issue decided has been again on ‘suppression of facts’ and that, as said earlier also, has not been held to be ‘relevant’ here, in the present complaint.
8. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties to issue the (disputed 3-H.P. Power Connection) demand notice to the complainant within 30 days and also to ensure the release of the connection within 60 days after the same is complied with by the complainant besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. The compliance of the orders be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of orders failing which proceedings u/s 27 CPA shall be initiated against the opposite parties.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
June 29, 2015 Member.
*MK*
