BEFORE THE DISTR7ICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 224 of 2015

Date of Institution: 13.4.2015

    Date of Decision:   09.02.2016

Mrs. Kuljit Kaur W/o Late Ranbir Singh S/o Budha Singh, R/o Village Kakkar, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala
2. Chief Engineer, Punjab State Power Corpn.Ltd., O/S. Hall Gate, Amritsar
3. SDO, Punjab State Power Corpn.Ltd., Lopoke Sub Division, Lopoke District Amritsar

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  Sh.Kashmir Butter, Advocate

               For the Opposite Parties    : Sh.N.S. Sandhu,Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Kuljit Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that her husband Ranbir Singh S/o Budha Singh applied for a tubewell connection  by depositing security fee of Rs. 1600/- vide receipt No. 148 dated 6.5.2010. According to the complainant opposite party issued a demand notice bearing No. 381 dated 7.3.2011  to Ranbir Singh directing him to deposit the service connection charges of Rs. 27000/- and to fulfill the other pre-requisite conditions. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 for depositing the requisite charges  but they did not accept the said amount from the complainant. However, opposite parties issued a letter bearing Memo No. 780 dated 3.5.2011  to the husband of the complainant regarding cancellation of the demand notice as per the directions of the higher authorities till further instructions of the higher authorities. As such the opposite parties rejected the demand notice without any just and sufficient cause. A legal notice dated 16.4.2013 was got issued by the husband of the complainant upon the opposite parties calling upon them to release the tubewell connection but they did not bother to reply and comply with the same. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to immediately release the tubewell connection to the complainant. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that they issued memo No. 780 dated 3.5.2011 regarding cancellation of the demand notice. In this regard it was submitted that a fax has been received by all the Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer (Distribution) and Sub Divisional Engineer/Chief Engineer (Distribution) from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala vide memo dated 25.1.2011 that the Punjab State has not accorded approval to condition No. 10.3 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 regarding release of new tubewell connections and till such approval is accorded by Punjab State, all the applications/A&A forms for release of new connection be held in abeyance. In view of the aforesaid instructions of the head office , memo No. 780 dated 3.5.2011 has been issued to the husband of the complainant . It was submitted that application for release of new connection has not been cancelled rather the same is held in abeyance till receipt of further instructions from higher authorities. While submitting that the memo issued by the opposite party is quite legal and valid and has rightly been issued to the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations,dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Manpreet Singh,SDO Ex.OP1, copy of memo No. 882 dated 25.1.2011 Ex.OP2.
5. 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 the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it stands fully proved on record that husband of the complainant applied for tubewell connection by depositing security fee of Rs. 1600/- with the opposite parties vide receipt No. 148 dated 6.5.2010 Ex.C-3. The opposite parties issued demand notice dated 7.3.2011 Ex.C-2 to the husband of the complainant directing him  to deposit the charges of Rs. 27000/- and to fulfill the other pre-requisite conditions. The husband of the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for depositing the requisite charges but they did not allow the complainant to do so. However, opposite parties issued letter dated 3.5.2011 Ex.C-6 to the husband of the complainant stating that the demand notice has been cancelled till further instructions received from the head office of PSPCL, Patiala. The husband of the complainant Ranbir Singh expired on  28.10.2013 as per death certificate Ex.C-5. Thereafter the complainant served legal notice dated 16.4.2013 Ex.C-4 and also filed application dated 15.12.2014 Ex.C-7 but the opposite parties did not get deposited the requisite charges from the complainant in order to issue the tubewell connection to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
7. Whereas case of the opposite parties is that they issued memo dated 3.5.2011 Ex.C-6 regarding cancellation of the demand notice as the Engineer in Chief/Chief Engineer (Distribution) and Sub Divisional Engineer (Distribution) of PSPCL received memo dated 25.1.2011 Ex.OP2 from the head office of PSPCL, Patiala that the Punjab State has not accorded approval to condition No. 10.3 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 regarding release of new tubewell connection and till such approval is accorded by Punjab State, all the applications/ A&A Forms for release of new connection be held in abeyance. So the opposite parties issued the said memo dated 3.5.2011  to the complainant. The application of the complainant for release of new connection has not been cancelled rather it has been held in abeyance and the same shall be considered under new instructions received from the head office/Punjab Govt. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties  submitted that in these circumstances, opposite parties have not committed any deficiency of service to the complainant.
8. Under these circumstances and in the light of above discussed facts of this case, we have come to the conclusion that the opposite parties have not cancelled the application of the complainant for release of new tubewell connection rather the same is kept in abeyance till receipt of further instructions from the higher authorities. So the present complaint is disposed of with the directions to the opposite parties  to consider the application of the complainant for release of new connection as and when  new instructions are received from the higher authorities and as per the instructions/rules and regulations of the opposite parties i.e. PSPCL. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. 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.

9.02.2016                                                             ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                                      (Anoop Sharma)               ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)

     Member                                        Member