Complainant Surjit 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 physical connection of the tubewell bearing no.AP-52/1752 of 3 BHP in his land and opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.4,50,000/- as damages and litigation expenses, in the interest of justice and fair play alongwith future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is ex-serviceman and had applied for getting Tubewell connection of 3 BHP under Ex-Serviceman Quota on 7.11.2003 to the opposite parties and also deposited the requisite amount.  Thereafter the opposite party no.2 issued Demand Notice to him for installation of electric tubewell connection. He had made compliance of the Demand notice and deposited the challan amount and other expenses meant for the purpose and also submitted Test Report before the Competent Authority. He has also submitted his duly sworn affidavit being attested by Executive Magistrate, Fatehgarh Churian, wherein he has categorically stated that he is owner of land comprised in Khasra No.110R/12 (5-1) and 19 (1-0) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Teja Kalan, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. At the time of installation of electric Tubewell connection and release of electricity supply to the said Tubewell connection, the officials of the Board visited the spot where he had constructed a Kotha for the purpose of installation of tubewell but the opposite party had not released the connection or electric supply to him at that time. The opposite parties had released tubewell connections of the inhabitants of the same village under the same category. He requested the opposite parties to release the electric supply or tubewell connection to his land for irrigation and cultivation but they were lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. He has further pleaded that after long time, he had come into the knowledge that the opposite parties in collusion and conspiracy with one Hardial Singh son of Narain Singh and Jaspal Singh son of Hardial Singh, residents of village Veela Teja, Tehsil Batala have installed the tubewell connection in their fields instead of  his field. Thereafter the said Hardial Singh filed a Civil Suit against him which was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.10.2012. He had also filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court, Chandigarh vide Civil Writ Petition No.20357/13 praying to give the physical connection of the tubewell bearing No.AP-52/1752 of BHP which was disposed of on 16.9.2013. The said Hardial Singh again also filed a similar suit against him and the opposite parties in which the opposite parties had also filed a Civil appeal in the Court of District Judge, Gurdaspur on 6.12.2013 against the order of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Batala dated 29.10.2013. Till today, no physical connection on the tubewell connection has been given to him. He suffered heavy loss due to non release of the physical connection to him as he was not able to irrigate and cultivate his land properly. Thus, there is no 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 by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts, the complaint is not maintainable being time barred and the complaint of the complainant is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was submitted that the tubewell connection in dispute was installed by the opposite parties at the directions of the complainant. The complainant told the opposite party that this place is the Khasra no.110 R/12 (5-1) and 19 (1-9) hence the opposite party had installed the tubewell connection bearing Account No.AP-52/1752 of 3 BHP at the same. Actually Hardial Singh is the maternal uncle of the complainant. The complainant deliberately installed the tubwell connection in their fields by concealing the material from the opposite parties and the opposite parties installed the tubewell connection at the directions of the complainant, because the opposite party has no personal interest in the matter in dispute. Neither the opposite party knows the complainant and his maternal uncle personally nor have any interest in the matter in dispute.  There is multiplicity of litigation is pending between the parties. Moreover the complainant deliberately, intentionally installed the tubewell connection in the land of the Surjit Singh and later on filed the cases on the Surjit Singh when their personal relations become strained and leveled the false allegations on the opposite party with the intention to take the undue advantage of process of law. It has next submitted that one Civil appeal is still pending in the District Court Gurdaspur between Hardial Singh and Surjit Singh, opposite party which is not disclosed by the complainant in the present complaint. The tubewell connection in dispute has already been TDCO by the opposite parties vide TDCO dated 2.4.2013.  All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Ld.counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Harbjhajan Singh S.D.O. Ex.OP1  alongwith other document Ex.OP2 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 Village: Veela Teja, Gurdaspur) had applied for a New 3 BHP Electric Tube Well Connection on 07.11.2003 under the reserved Ex-serviceman Quota with the OP Corporation and also complied with all the subsequent formalities and requisites like deposit of fees, filing of land-ownership fards and other affidavit(s) for release of the Tube-well Connection at his lands. However, the OP Corporation did somehow install this Tube-well Connection in the lands of one Hardial Singh (and another) but for reasons best known to them only.

7.       Upon getting appraised of the alleged conniving situation the applicant complainant Surjit Singh moved its transfer-application with the OP Corporation. But, in the meantime the then Holder Hardyal Singh filed the civil-suit in the local civil-court for retention/stay-back of the T/W Connection that somehow was dismissed as withdrawn, on 16.10.2012. During the intervention, the complainant had also filed a CWP (Civil Writ Petition) in the honorable P & H High Court who disposed of the same (without going into its merits) had directed the higher authorities to investigate and decide the applicant complainant’s petition pending before them.

8.       The competent authority (at the OP corporation) ordered for ‘disconnection’ of the Tube-well Connection from the land-sites of Hardial Singh who could somehow get the ‘stay’ from the local civil-court and thus the connection was re-installed at his lands. Thus, a continuous legal battle has been since continuing between the two sides with the result that the original applicant complainant continues to suffer for the last more than one and a half decade for none of his faults but rather on account of the determined lapse on the part of the officers/officials of the OP corporation as has been duly investigated (Ex.C10 and Ex.C11) by their own senior officers vides its investigation and findings. Thus, we find that ‘deficiency in service’ stands proved on the part of the OP service providers.

9.       Further, the complainant has alleged to have been unnecessarily harassed by the opposite party service providers, for ulterior motives, for more than one and a half decade starting from the date of deposit of earnest money 07.11.2003.  And, thus prompts the present complaint with the complainant claiming issuance/ installation of the disputed connection at his lands besides an award for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as cost, compensation and damages etc. Finally, we find that the complainant has satisfactorily proved all his allegation contented complaint vide his evidentiary affidavit (Ex.Cw1/A) and other primary documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11; whereas the OP Corporation has simply filed its SDO’s affidavit (Ex.OP1) deposing therein of its compulsions at the face of the various civil court orders, connivance of the complainant with relative/other connection holder Hardyal Singh & the present uninstalled/disconnected status of the disputed Tube-well Connection etc. The OP Corporation has also not rebutted/ denied the complainant’s allegation of favoritism and connivance with the other holder in release of new connection through some cogent and acceptable evidence.

10.      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 admittedly through its officers/officials as named out vide its investigation and thus the present complainant shall be entitled to one favorable statutory award. Somehow, we find that the ongoing civil litigation, if any, shall not affect the issuance/ installation of Tube-well Connection at the complainant’s land-site as it shall simply decide the issue whether to uproot or to continue with the Tube-well connection at the land-site of the holder Hardyal Singh. Moreover, the impugned delay resulting by way of inadvertent connection-installation at wrong site by the opposite party corporation has certainly not been a matter of routine and also not in accordance with the legally accrued principles as per their 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.

11.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Corporation Service Providers to issue/install (against the received fee and at no additional cost) one three HP Tube-well Connection (in lieu of that applied for with them) at the complainant’s land-site 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 complaint till actually paid.

12.      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,28 2018                                                                    Member

*MK*