THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Complaint No. 35-14
Date of Institution : 21.1.2014
Date of Decision : 12.03.2015
Harjit Singh son of S. Hazara Singh, resident of Vill.Dharmu Chak, Tehsil Baba Bakala District Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman
SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Sub Division Mehta Chowk, Distt.Amritsar
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Vishal Gogna,Adv
For the opposite parties : Sh.Anil Sharma,Adv
-2-
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member & Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Harjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he applied for tubewell connection with the opposite party on 3.9.2001 by depositing Rs. 810/- and the opposite party issued receipt regarding the same. Thereafterthe opposite party issued demand notice to the complainant alleging that complainant can install the tubewell connection and thus the complainant deposited Rs. 500/- on 9.2.2011 vide receipt No. 258. The complainant completed all the formalities as required by the opposite party.The complainant also made bore in his land and put submersible motor in the same and spent more than Rs. 1 lac in making bore and putting motor in the same. Thereafterthe opposite party asked the complainant that he should deposit Rs 79155/- with them for installing tubewell connection which the complainant deposited with the opposite party. Then the opposite party sent a letter dated 17.12.2013 bearing memo No. 2143 that his electric connection cannot be installed and asked to refund his amount of Rs 79,155/-. The complainant approached the
-3-
opposite party and requested them not to do so as he had completed all the formalities as required by them and had spent more than Rs. 1Lac, but they did not listen the genuine request of the complainant.Alleging the same to be deficiencyin service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to install the tubewell connection in the field of the complainant. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that according to the instructions of the opposite party demand notice could not be issued to the consumers who have applied tubewell connection under ARTC scheme after 31.12.2000 . But in the present complaint the demand notice was issued to the complainant mistakenly as he had applied tubewell connection under ARTC scheme on 3.9.2001 i.s. After 31.12.2000.When this fact came to the notice of the opposite party, the opposite party issued letter dated 17.12.2013 to the complainant to take back his money which was deposited by the complainant on demand notice issued by the opposite party as the demand notice has been issued by the opposite party wrongly. It was submitted that complainant came to the office of the opposite party and agreed to take back his money and in this regard he signed on the hand receipt form and agreed to refund his money from the opposite party .While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
-4-
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4, copy of memo No. 2143 Ex.C-5.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Bhagwant Singh, SDO Ex.OP1,copy of circular Ex.OP2, copy of memo dated 12.2.2013 Ex.OP3, copy of hand receipt Ex.OP4.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant applied for tubewell connection on 3.9.2001 by depositing application fee of Rs 810/- vide receipt Ex.C-2.The complainant further alleges that on the asking of opposite party the complainant further deposited Rs.500/- on 9.2.2011 vide receipt Ex.C-3.The complainant further alleged that the opposite party asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 79,155/- with the opposite party for installing tubewell connection in favour of the complainant.Resultantly the complainant deposited Rs. 79,155/- with the opposite party but later on the opposite party issued letter dated 19.12.2013 asking the complainant that as per the policy of the opposite party, no new tubewell connection could be issued to the person who applied for tubewell connection after 31.12.2000.As such they requested the complainant to deposit Rs. 79,155/-. The complainant deposited the abovesaid amount with the opposite party vide receipt dated 6.3.2013 against proper receipt.The complainant submitted that he spent huge amount of getting the bore dug in his land and putting submersible motor in the same , as such he suffered huge financial loss as well as harassment due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that according to instructions of opposite party, Ex.OP2 demand notice could not be issued to the persons, who have applied tubewell connection under A.R.T.C. Scheme after 31.12.2000.But in the case of the complainant the demand notice was issued to the complainant mistakenly as he had applied tubewell connection under ARTC scheme on 3.9.2001 i.e.after 31.12.2000 and when this fact came to the knowledge of the opposite party, the opposite party issued letter bearing Memo No. 2143 dated 17.12.2013 Ex.C-5/Ex.OP3 asking the complainant that the demand notice has been inadvertently/wrongly issued to the complainant because electric tubewell connection could not be issued to the persons, who had applied for the same after 31.12.2000.Wherea sthe complainant had applied for tubewell connection on 30.9.2001 i.e. after 31.12.2000. So the complainant was requested to get back his amount of Rs. 79,155/- deposited by the complainant with the opposite party vide receipt dated 6.3.2013 by furnishing receipt with the opposite party.Resultantly the complainant furnished receipt Ex.OP4 under his own signatures . But he did not take the money back and filed the present complaint. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that under these circumstances ,there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant applied for electric tubewell connection to the opposite party on 3.9.2001. As per the instructions of the opposite party Ex.OP2 demand notice could not be issued to the consumers, who have applied for tubewell connection under ARTC scheme after 31.12.2000.But in the present case the demand notice was issued to the complainant inadvertently.Resultantly the complainant depsited Rs. 79,155/- with the opposite party on 6.3.2013 as is evident from the letter of the opposite party Ex.OP3. But when this fact came to the notice of the opposite party, opposite party issued letter bearing memo No. 2143 dated 17.12.2013 Ex.OP3/Ex.C-5 to the complainant narrating the aforesaid instructions of the opposite party and asking the complainant to get back his amount of Rs. 79,155/- by furnishing receipt. Consequently the complainant furnished the hand receipt under his own signatures to the opposite party Ex.OP4 to get back his amount of Rs. 79,155/-. But he did not receive the cheque from the opposite party and filed the present complaint. All this shows that due to inadvertence or negligence on the part of the officials of the opposite party, the complainant was issued demand notice regarding installation of electric tubewell connection in his favour, whereas he was not entitled to the same as per the instructions of the opposite party Ex.OP2 because demand notice could be issued to the persons, who had applied for tubewell connection under ARTC Scheme on or before 31.12.2000,whereas the complainant has applied for tubewell connection under ARTC Scheme on 3.9.2001 i.e after 31.12.2000.The complainant deposited Rs. 79,155/- with the opposite party vide receipt dated 6.3.2013 as per letter Ex.C-5 and they requested the complainant vide this letter dated 17.12.2013 Ex.OP3 to get this amount back from the oppositeparty.But uptil now they had not issued the cheque to the complainant nor refunded the amount. As such the complainant is entitled to refund of this amount alongwith interest because this amount of Rs. 79,155/- of the complainant has been used by the opposite party since 6.3.2013 due to negligence /inadvertence on the part of the officials of the opposite party and the complainant was deprived of the use of this money since 6.3.2013 onwards. The complainant has also alleged that he had spent huge amount on digging of bore and installation of submersible pump at the site but the complainant could not produce any documentary or cogent evidence regarding the digging of bore or installation of submersible pump, etc at the site.
9. Resultantly we hold that there is some deficiency of service/negligence on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
10. Consequently we partly allow this complaint with costs thereby opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 79,155/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of deposit of the fee i.e. 6.3.2013 till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
12.3.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
