BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 78

Date of Institution : 26.3.2010

Date of Decision : 30.9.2010

Gurjit Singh son of S. Jagroop Singh, aged about 35 years, resident of Village Dal Singh Wala, Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through its Chairman, Patiala.

2. Punjab State Electricity Board, Operation Division, Kotkapura, through its XEN, Kotkapura.

3. Punjab State Electricity Board, Jaitu, Sub Division, Jaitu, through its SDO PSEB, Jaitu.

4. Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot, through its Superintending Engineer, PSEB, Faridkot.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Joginder Singh Brar counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties due to non release of Electric tubewell connection to the complainant against application dated 13.12.1993 under Five Acre Scheme and directing the opposite parties to issue/release the electric tubewell connection to the complainant under the said scheme and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides payment of Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he had applied for tubewell connection with the opposite parties vide application dated 13.12.1993. On 15.3.2007, the Board had got published a publication whereby the Board had launched a scheme that the farmers who are having the land up to 5 acres or below 5 acres they will be released electric tubewell connection on priority basis who have already applied for getting electric connection. The complainant is also having the land less than five acres and after the enquiry made by the Department a list was published by the department vide CC No. 22 dated 30.5.2007 of Sub Division, Jaitu and the name of the complainant was mentioned in the said list. The opposite parties had issued demand notice on 20.3.2008 and accordingly he deposited Rs. 15,840/- with the opposite parties vide receipt No. 96 dated 24.3.2008. The opposite party No. 3 had wrote a letter to the complainant for the issuance of electric tubewell connection under Five Acre Scheme to him and asked him to deposit the required documents and complainant deposited the required documents. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 3 asked for the release of the required equipments to Senior Executive Engineer, Central Bhandar, Kotkapura to the complainant but thereafter the required connection was not released to the complainant, rather the opposite parties wrongly and illegally with malafide intention released motor connections to some other persons who had deposited the amount later on than the complainant. After that in the month of November, 2009 the complainant again met the concerned officials of PSEB who told him that his case has been converted into General Category and scheme of Five Acres has been stopped. The policy of the opposite parties is quite against the law and rules. He requested the opposite parties to release his electric tubewell connection but the opposite parties did not listen to the complainant. The complainant also sent a registered notice dated 1.2.2010 to the opposite parties but they failed to give any reply, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 29.3.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objection to the effect that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that the connections were to be released as per the rules and regulations and instructions of the opposite parties issued from time to time and as per the seniority list maintained by the opposite party. It is correct that the name of the complainant has been entered in the list so maintained by the opposite party. The connections are released as per the category wise seniority list and roaster so maintained by the opposite party. The seniority list cannot be bypassed in any way. The turn of the present complainant has not yet come. As per the category wise seniority list of the complainant he is at Serial Number 173. The connection would be released as and when the turn of the complainant comes. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All 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, copy of demand notice No. 735 Ex.C-2, copy of receipt No. 96 Ex.C-3, copy of receipt dated 13.12.1993 Ex.C-4, copy of notice dated 1.2.2010 Ex.C-5, copy of seniority list Ex.C-6 dated 30.5.2007 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Amarjit Singh Ex.R-1, documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4 , Circular Ex.R-5 and closed their evidence.

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.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has strenuously argued that despite the fact that complainant complied with the demand notice issued in way back in the year 2008 and deposited Rs. 15,840/- as service connection charges vide receipt Ex.C-3 dated 24.3.2008, the tubewell connection to the complainant was not released as per PSEB rules. He further argued that much to the embarrassment of the complainant tubewell connection to the other persons who deposited the amount after the complainant had done so as per the seniority list has already been released, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that tubewell connections under the category in question were to be released on priority basis. Priority of the complainant falls at Sr. No. 173. Therefore, tubewell connection to the complainant cannot be release before releasing the tubewell connections to the other applicants who are much senior to him. He further argued that complainant has not disclosed the name of the persons junior to him in the priority list who have been given the connections as alleged.

10. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The main grouse of the complainant in this case is that persons junior to him in the seniority/priority list have already been released the tubewell connections. It is not disputed that complainant had applied for the tubewell connection in way back 13.12.1993. Demand notice was issued to him in the year 2008 and date of compliance in his case is 24.3.2008. As per the record on file persons much senior to him are waiting the release of tubewell connection in their favour. As per the priority/seniority list as exists at present and is available in the file at Ex.R-4 he is placed at Sr. No. 173. Though in the seniority list of Under 5 Acres Scheme Ex.R-2 the name of the complainant fell at Sr. No. 42 but in view of precedence given to other categories in the fresh seniority list Ex.R-4 under commercial circulars No. 22/2007; 33/2009 and commercial circular 11/2010, complainant cannot be given precedence by disturbing the seniority/priority as so drawn. In HSEB and others Versus District Consumer Welfare Organisation (Regd.) 1995(2) CPC-247, District Forum directed Board to release electric connections to the respondent in complaint filed by him as there was delay of five years in giving the connection in a situation where no seniority list was produced before the District Forum. However, the seniority list was presented in the State Commission and it was found that seniority of the complainant was below the applicants who had been released the tubewell connections. It was held by the State Commission Haryana, Chandigarh that the mere fact that period of five years has elapsed during which the Electricity Department has made tremendous progress in providing electricity in the State, does not mean that the Electricity Board should release the connection to the complainant out of turn who had applied much later. The order of District Forum was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. In the present case, in our view complainant cannot be given out of turn connection by the opposite parties to the applicants who had applied much prior to him and had made compliance much prior to him. Complainant has failed to disclose on file the name of person junior to him in the seniority/priority to whom the opposite parties have already released the tubewell connection. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the complainant cannot be accepted. In view of our above discussion the complaint filed by Gurjit Singh is found to be meritless and as such the same is dismissed. In the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 30.9.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)