BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No.552 of 2014
Date of Institution: 20-10-2014
Date of Decision: 07-07-2015
Harpal Singh son of S.Dara Singh, resident of village: Verpal, Tehsil and District Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman cum Managing Director service through S.D.O. Verpal Sub Division, District Amritsar.
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Sushil Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Sh. N.S.Sandhu, Advocate.
Quorum:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.
- Present complaint has been filed by Harpal Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is handicapped person having his disability upto 55%. Complainant alleges that being a handicapped person, he has applied with the Opposite Party for obtaining a new tubewell connection for the purpose of irrigating his land and as required by the Opposite Party, the complainant has also deposited security amount of Rs.1700/- with the Opposite Party on 18.9.2006 against receipt. The officials of the Opposite Party assured the complainant that the tubewell connection would be released to the complainant within shortest period. The officials of the Opposite Party also visited the land of the complainant for physical verification at the spot and found the complainant eligible for the release of new tubewell connection. The complainant has been visiting the Opposite Party time and again and requesting the Opposite Party to release him new tubewell connection, but the Opposite Party has been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to release a new tubewell connection as applied for to the complainant. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant applied for a new tubewell connection and deposited the security amount of Rs.1700/- with the Opposite Party on 18.6.2006 under handicapped category. But it is wrong that any of the officials gave any assurance to the complainant that he is eligible for the connection as alleged. The eligibility of the person, who applied for new connection under any category, is not seen at the time of applying of new connection, but the same is seen after scrutinizing the entire file and eligibility. Therefore, the question of giving any such assurance by any of the officials of the Opposite Party to the complainant does not arise at all. Moreover, as per Commercial Circular No.78/2001 relating to policy for release of tubewell connections under blind/ handicapped persons priority category, it is provided as under:-.
“The matter has been reviewed and it has been decided that all the AP applicants registered upto 31.8.2001 under blind/ handicapped persons priority category shall be processed for issue of demand notice and release of connection as per existing terms and conditions of Self Financing Scheme. However, all the applicants registered after 31.8.2001 shall be kept pending and shall be covered as per the future policy for release of tubewell connection.”
Admittedly, the complainant applied for connection on 18.9.2006 and as per aforesaid commercial circular, only those persons falling under handicapped category are entitled to release of connection if their application is registered upto 31.8.2001 and therefore, the complainant having applied on 18.9.2006 i.e. later than 31.8.2001 is not entitled to the release of new connection under handicapped category. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Kumar, SDO Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant applied for obtaining new tubewell connection under handicapped person category to the Opposite Party on 18.9.2006 by depositing an amount of Rs.1700/- vide receipt Ex.C2 alongwith application. The complainant submitted that officials of the Opposite Party stated that the complainant is eligible for the tubewell connection as applied for and that same would be released to the complainant within the shortest period. The complainant also filed the copy of handicapped certificate issued by Orthopedic Surgeon Ex.C3 and the certified issued by Gram Panchayat, Verpal Kalan, Block Atari (Amritsar) Ex.C4, but the Opposite Party did not release the tubewell connection to the complainant despite so many requests made by the complainant to the Opposite Party. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant applied for a new tubewell connection and deposited the security amount of Rs.1700/- with the Opposite Party on 18.6.2006 under handicapped category, but it is denied that any of the officials of the Opposite Party gave any assurance to the complainant that he is eligible for the tubewell connection as alleged nor he was assured that tubewell connection shall be issued to the complainant. The application of the complainant was scrutinized. Under the instructions laid down in Commercial Circular No.78/2001 relating to policy for release of tubewell connections under blind/ handicapped persons priority category wherein it is provided that the matter has been reviewed and it has been decided that all the AP applicants registered upto 31.8.2001 under blind/ handicapped persons priority category shall be processed for issue of demand notice and release of connection as per existing terms and conditions of Self Financing Scheme. However, all the applicants registered after 31.8.2001 shall be kept pending and shall be covered as per the future policy for release of tubewell connection. Admittedly, the complainant applied for tubewell connection on 18.9.2006 whereas as per aforesaid commercial circular under handicapped category, only those persons are entitled to release of connection if their application is registered upto 31.8.2001. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to release of new tubewell connection, as such, he is not entitled to the relief claimed for. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant applied for tubewell connection under handicapped person category on 18.9.2006 by depositing security amount of Rs.1700/- whereas as per Commercial Circular No.78/2001 relating to policy for release of tubewell connections under blind/ handicapped persons priority category, it has been clearly provided that the matter has been reviewed and it has been decided that all the AP applicants registered upto 31.8.2001 under blind/ handicapped persons priority category shall be processed for issue of demand notice and release of connection as per existing terms and conditions of Self Financing Scheme. It has been categorically mentioned in the aforesaid Commercial Circular that all the applicants registered after 31.8.2001 shall be kept pending and shall be covered as per the future policy for release of tubewell connection. So case of the complainant does not fall under the Commercial Circular No. 78/2001 i.e. policy for the release of the tubewell connection under blind/ handicapped persons category. The complainant has applied for new tubewell connection on 18.9.2006. However, as per the aforesaid Commercial Circular of the Opposite Party, the case of the complainant shall be kept pending and shall be covered as per the future policy for release of tubewell connection by Opposite Party.
- Consequently, we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 07-07-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President
hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
