Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> DHARAM SINGH PRESIDENT<br /> Kartar Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to release the 5 BHP tubewell connection (General) on priority basis which was applied on 8.3.1990 and as per demand notice deposited the amount of Rs.15,840/- on 1.6.2005 vide receipt No. 254/89881 and to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he had applied for 5 BHP tubewell connection (General) on 8.3.1990 against which the opposite parties issued demand notice in the year 2005. The complainant complied with the condition of the demand notice and submitted the test report to the opposite party No. 3 and also deposited Rs.15,840/-, so he is consumer of the PSEB. The complainant opted for to install his own transformer to get the connection on priority as per rules and regulations of the PSEB in the month 12/2005 and also submitted the required affidavit to the opposite party no. 3 prepared on 22.12.2005.The connections of the junior applicants who have opted for own transformer after 22.12.2005 have been released to them by the but the connection of the complainant has not been released inspite of verbal and written requests made by the complainant to the opposite party No. 3 and higher officers of the PSEB. It was told by the Revenue Accountant of the opposite party No. 3 that the affidavit of the complainant which was submitted on 22.12.2005 was destroyed in the fire broke out in the office of the opposite party No. 3 and he asked the complainant to submit a fresh affidavit, so the complainant prepared a new affidavit on 1.12.2006 and submitted the same in the office of the opposite party No. 3. The connection of the complainant has yet not been released inspite of the fact that connections to the junior applicants have already been released. The complainant also submitted an application to Senior Xen. Operation Division, PSEB, Kotkapura on 19.5.2007 but no connection has been released to the complainant. He visited the office of the opposite party No. 3 many a times and made requests to release to the tubewell connection but the opposite party No. 3 did not respond and flatly refused to do anything in this matter which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties caused great mental tension, harassment to the complainants for which the complainants claims a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 8.06.2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties appeared through Sh. Rajneesh Garg Advocate and filed reply taking preliminary objections that the opposite parties have constituted a separate Disputes Settlement Committee to redress the grievances of consumer, but the complainants did not approach in writing to get his grievances redressed, as such the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant does not come under the definition of consumer. On merits the opposite parties admitted that the complainant had applied for the electric connection but he is not comes under the definition of consumer. It is wrong that the connection has been released to the junior applicant. The connection was released according to rules and regulations and according to the seniority maintained by the opposite parties. No connection is released by bye-passing the seniority list. The complainant is placed at Serial No. 12 of the seniority list so maintained by the opposite parties. The connection would be released to the complainant as and when his turn comes and that to according to the seniority. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complainant is not entitled for any compensation and litigation expenses. So the complaint be dismissed. <br /> 5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of receipt No. 254 dated 1.6.2005 Ex.C-2, copy of affidavit dated 22.12.2005 Ex.C-3, copy of letter No. 6459 dated 19.5.2007 Ex.C-4, copy of A&A form Ex.C-5, copy of letter No. 1798 dated 17.8.2007 Ex.C-6, copy of bill No. 58 dated 21.5.2007 Ex.C-7, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Sh. Major Singh AAE, PSEB, Jaitu, District Faridkot Ex.R-1, seniority list Ex.R-2 and closed their evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant have completed all the formalities with regard to release of 5 BHP tubewell connection for agriculture purpose but the opposite parties have not released electric connection though junior to him have been given benefit of release of electric connection. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that no connection has been released to the junior to the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the complainant have been applied for electric connection by depositing requisite fees and have been shown in seniority list Ex.R-2 at Serial No. 12 is consumer of the opposite parties. His application number is 1130 and date of application for release of general category connection is 8.3.1990. The test report have been submitted on 1.6.2005,as per the scheme of the opposite parties complainant have purchased his own transformer on 21.5.2007 as per receipt Ex.C-7. He has also deposited requisite amount for release of electric connection on the basis of purchase of his own transformer. Chhinder Pal Singh who applied for electric connection on 8.3.1990 have been released electric connection on 25.2.2007. So it is held that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties by not providing electric connection to the complainant as per their scheme. The name of Chhinder Pal Singh does not figure in seniority list Ex.R-2, so it is held that the opposite parties have released electric connection junior to the complainant. <br /> 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly the opposite parties are directed to release the electric tubewell connection to the complainant within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 3.4.2008<br /> <br />