Lal Chand complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to release the electric tubewell connection to the complainant of 7-1/2 BHP immediately and to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension, harassment and loss of agriculture crop besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is an agriculturist having 4-1/2 acres agriculture land at Jaitu. The complainant on 9/6/1988 has applied for a electric tubewell connection of 7-1/2 BHP electric motor by depositing the requisite fee, as such he has become the consumer of the opposite parties. In pursuance of the application of the complainant the opposite party No. 2 issued a demand notice No. 740 dated 31/3/2005 thereby directing the complainant to deposit Rs.23,510/- and to submit the test report. In compliance of the demand notice the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.23510/- with the opposite party No. 2 vide receipt No. 284 dated 8/4/2005 and also submitted the test report. The site was inspected by the employees of the opposite parties and the estimate for the release of the connection was prepared and passed by the concerned authorities. Inspite of complete of all the required formalities by the complainant, the connection of the complainant has not been released inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant. Now he come to know that the connections of the junior applicants who have complied the demand notice after the compliance made by the complainant have been released by the opposite parties. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 many times and also made representation to the higher authorities of the PSEB to get his connection released but uptill today no connection of the complainant has been released and ultimately a week back the opposite party No. 2 flatly refused to release the connection of the complainant which amounts to clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension, harassment to the complainant and also suffered a loss of agriculture crop due to non release of connection so he claims a sum of Rs.70000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- for litigation expenses. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 14-9-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. Rajneesh Garg Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the opposite parties have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees so as to settle the dispute arising between the parties but the complainant has not put his case before the said committee so the present complaint is not maintainable. The opposite parties have not been properly impleaded so the complaint be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The present complaint is not the consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act so the complaint is no locus-standi to file the present complaint. On merits the opposite parties admitted that the complainant had applied for electric tubewell connection of 7-1/2 BHP. The tubewell connections are issued as per the rules and regulations and circulars of the opposite parties from time to time. As per instructions no tubewell connection is to be installed against the application which are registered after 31/3/1988. The application of the complainant has been registered after the said period so the tubewell connection not be installed to the present complainant. The connections are released as and when the tenure comes. It is wrong that the connection has been released to the junior applicants. There cannot be bye-pass to the seniority list and connections are released purely according to seniority. The connection to the complainant would be released as and when his turn comes, so there is no deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has not suffered any loss on account of any act on the part of the opposite parties. So the complaint be dismissed with special costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, photocopy of receipt dated 8/4/2005 Ex.C-2 copy of receipt dated 9/6/1988 Ex.C-3, copy of demand notice Ex.C-4, copy of memo No. 132 dated 31/1/2007 Ex.C-5, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Major Singh AAE Ex.R-1, affidavit of Amarjit Singh AEE Ex.R-2, copy of seniority list Ex.R-3 and Ex.R-4 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 submitted that the seniority of the complainant for release of AP electric connection though is matured still opposite parties are not releasing electric connection in favour of the complainant. Opposite parties have released electric connections to the junior applicants. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that opposite parties have not broken the seniority with regard to release of AP electric connections. Still the turn of the complainant for release of electric connection has not matured so complaint is liable to be dismissed. <br /> 10. From perusal of the file it is made out that as per seniority list of pending AP test reports of General category other than 31/3/1988 Ex.R-3 shows that the complainant Lal Chand has been placed at Serial No. 3, however revised seniority list Ex.R-4 shows that Lal Chand complainant at Serial No. 26. The seniority list changes from time to time so the seniority list has been prepared by the opposite parties on the basis of commercial circular No. 42/2006 dated 3/8/2006. However by way of this circular Commercial Circular No. 25/2006 dated 2/6/2006 para No. 3 has been deleted. As per commercial circular 25/2006 test reports received against applications registered up to 31/3/1988 in the order of seniority based on the date of the registration of the application leads to issue of material for release of only AP tubewell connections. As per Commercial Circular No. 42/2006 the works already in hand for which sufficient material stands issued before 31/5/2006 shall be completed and may not be withheld on account of above instructions. However where only poles and fittings/stay set etc. have been issued, no further material be issued. These above relaxations are given with a view that genuine cases where bulk of material stood already issued/given may not be unnecessary withheld. In such like circumstances the complainant placing reliance on circular No. 35/2004 is of no avail to the complainant. As the latest circulars are to prevail upon. Since the complainant is aspirant of release of electric connection so PSEB and another Versus Saudagar Singh reported in 2006(3) Consumer Law Today-322 relied upon by the complainant is not helpful to him in any manner. <br /> 11. Since no delay is being caused by the opposite parties unnecessarily so Punjab State Electricity Board Versus Harminder Singh reported in IV (2006) CPJ-424 relied upon by the complainant is not helpful to him in any manner. <br /> 12. In view of above noted facts and circumstances the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. 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: 11/6/2007<br /> <br />