BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA Complaint No.166/24.9.2007 Decided on : 21.10.2008 Sukhbir Singh aged 51 year son of Sh. Darshan Singh resident to Nagal Kalan Tehsil and District Mans a. ......Complainant. Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala through its Chairman, Patilala. 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mans a. 3. S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub-Division(City) Mans a Tehsil and District Mans a. ..........Opposite Parties. Present: Sh.Ranjit Singh, Advocate, for the complainant. Sh..S.P.Gupta, Advocate, for the OPs. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: The complainant case as set out is that he is irrigating his own land at village Nagal Kalan as also including the land of his father and brother and he has sown paddy crop in the field. For irrigating the land a kundi connection was obtained by him from Opposite party No.3 by depositing Rs.100/- vide receipt No.37 dated 8.6.2007 and thereafter remaining amount of Rs.7500/- was deposited under receipt No.449 dated 3.7.2007. The opposite parties on the same day in their papers showed the electric connection has been released but CC grievance is that despite completing all the formalities the opposite parties failed to restore the seasonal kundi connection to him, even though he made entry in the complaint register at village Nagal Kalan on 20.8.2007, 22.8.2007 and 24.8.2007. CC further case is that he suffered a huge loss of crop on contd.........2.... /2/ account of the Opposite parties who failed to release the connection to him at spot. Thus alleging deficiency in service, the present complaint is filed asking for the relief of directing the opposite parties to: a) to refund a sum of Rs.7600/- including interest, b) pay to the CC a sum of Rs.22000/- incurred by him on diesel, c) pay a sum of Rs.40000/- on account of mental and physical harassment, d) pay a sum of Rs. 25000/- on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In reply legal objections on the ground of verification and maintainability are taken up. It is not denied that the CC deposited requisite fee with the opposite parties and completed all the formalities but the opposite parties case is that the connection was released to the CC on 3.7.2007 in which regard a map was prepared and proved by opposite party No.3. The rest of the allegations of CC regarding sustaining any loss is denied. Parties led evidence. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after careful scrutiny of the evidence, we find that it is not a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for these reasons. It is the CC own admitted case that the kundi connection was released by the opposite parties on the same date i.e.3.7.2007 in papers which fact is also quite evident from the map exhibit C-11 and exhibit C-12 plus copy of the SCO as exhibit OP-1. But CC case is that it was not actually released on the spot with the result he had to arrange for diesel for which Rs.22000/- was spent but which version does not seem to have symbol or truth. Further reasons that except his self serving statement he has not placed on record any proof of verifiable nature much less any receipt showing that he purchased diesel and spent Rs.22000/- nor he brought on record the affidavit statement of any independent person to confirm veracity of his version on that aspect of the matter. It is no doubt that in support of his version he entered into correspondence through Contd.....3... /3/ number of letters written to opposite parties including the Superintending Engineer in support of which he placed on record copy of such letters as exhibit C-4, C-6 and C-7 what may not be loss sight is that in reply to the official letter send as exhibit C-8 , C-9 by SDO and Senior Executive Engineer respectively, CC was intimated that he has already been released the connection on 3.7.2007 itself vide SCO No.77/56339. In support of which, not only the CC himself has placed on record the copy of SCO and the maps ext. C-10 to C-12 showing that the kundi connection has been released at the spot but Junior Engineer, Jagdish Rai has stepped in vide a affidavit statement on that aspect of the matter. Again this find no rebuttal on record. In such situation, therefore, we fear that no case for deficiency in service is made out especially when the documents namely C-10 to C-12 have been prepared by the public servant in discharge of their official duties. Self serving affidavit statement of complainant alone do not carry much weight and as such is ignored. For the reasons, therefore, we find no merit in the complaint. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to each of party free of cost. File be arranged, indexed and consigned to records. Announced: 21.10.2008. Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
