THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 180 of 2014
Date of Institution : 31.3.2014
Date of Decision : 8.06.2015
Lakhwinder Kaur wife of Santokh Singh resident of Dianpur, P.O. Baba Bakala District Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.,Sub Division, Baba Bakala District Amritsar
XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.Beas, District Amritsar
Superintending Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Tarn Taran
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Pardeep Mahajan,Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh.S.S.Batra,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
-2-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Lakhwinder Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that her husband Santokh Singh applied for electric connection by depositing the security with the opposite party. According to the complainant after the death of her husband Santokh Singh, complainant deposited Rs. 1600/- as security on 10.6.2013. Complainant has alleged that she visited the opposite party many times to deposit the required amount of demand notice, but no proper reply was given. Thereafter opposite party issued a demand notice No. 1442 dated 14.11.2013 directing the complainant to deposit Rs. 84652/- as service connection and estimated costs. In the said notice no date was mentioned for depositing the amount. The said demand notice was received by the complainant on 6.12.2013. On receipt of demand notice complainant approached the opposite party to pay the requisite charges but the concerned official refused to entertain the complainant and received the required amount. Thereafter complainant sent so many letters vide letter dated 4.1.2014 but no reply was given. Complainant also served a legal notice datd 10.3.2014. However, it was informed to the complainant vide circular No. 43/2013 dated 29.8.2013 that the last date for depositing the amount was 15.11.2013. Complainant has alleged that the demand notice was dated 14.11.2013 and last date for depositing he amount of demand notice was 15.11.2013 and the same was sent through post and in case there was short time, the opposite party could have sent the same personally through any official. Even no date of sending the demand notice was mentioned which clearly speaks about the malafide intention of the opposite party. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to receive the amount of demand notice and provide electric connection without any further delay. 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 Santokh Singh husband of the complainant deposited the security for tubewell connection under ARTC scheme. But he died and after his death complainant being widow got transferred the said application of connection in her name by depositing requisite charges vide receipt dated 10.6.2013. Accordingly the said request/application of connection was transferred in the name of the complainant on 13.11.2013 and on 14.11.2013 demand notice was sent to the complainant through post to deposit an amount of Rs. 84652/- as charges under the scheme and a duplicate copy of the same has been given to the complainant by hand because the scheme was valid upto 15.11.2013. On 29.11.2013 complainant filed an application for extension of time for deposit of amount under ARTC scheme and the same was forwarded to the competent authority. So the opposite party has having no fault in any where as it was a policy matter as per circular No. 43/2013 dated 29.8.2013. It was denied that demand notice was received by the complainant on 6.12.2013. Whereas an application for extension of date for deposit of amunt has been filed on 29.11.2013.While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of payment receipts Ex.C-1 and C-2, copy of demand notice Ex.C-3, letter issued to the higher authority Ex.C-4, legal noice Ex.C-5, postal receipts Ex.C-6 to C-8, reply to legal notice Ex.C-9, nvelope containing demand notice Ex.C-10, copy of application under RTI Ex.C-11, copy of information supplied under RTI Ex.C-12 and C-13, copy of circular Ex.C-14.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Bhagwan Dass Ex.OP1/A, copy of reply to notice Ex.OP1, copy of instruction regarding ARTC scheme Ex.OP2, copy of application for extension of date of scheme from SDO Ex.OP3, copy of cut off date application /letter Ex.OP4, copy of application of the complainant to SDO Ex.OP5, copy of reply to application Ex.OP6, copy of extension of date application of the complainant Ex.OP7, copy of receipt of demand notice Ex.OP8, copy of letter dated 3.12.2013 Ex.OP9, copies of receipts Ex.OP10 and OP11.
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 is clear that husband of the complainant namely Santokh Singh applied for tubewell electric connection and deposited security with the opposite party. However, said Santokh Singh expired and complainant deposited Rs. 1600/- as security vide receipt dated 10.6.2013 Ex.C-2 with the opposite party and the name of the complainant was substituted in place of Santokh Singh, original applicant in the record of the opposite party. Opposite party issued demand notice bearing No. 1442 dated 14.11.2013 Ex.3 directing the complainant to deposit Rs. 84,652/- as service connection and estimated costs. The complainant alleges that in the said notice, no date was mentioned for depositing the amount with the opposite party. The said demand notice was received by the complainant on 6.12.2013. On receipt of the demand notice on 6.12.2013 the complainant went to pay the requisite charges to the opposite party. But the concerned official refused to entertain the complainant and received the aforesaid amount. Thereafter the complainant sent so many letters to various higher officials i.e. letter dated 9.12.2013 Ex.C-4 and also issued legal notice to the opposite party dated 5.3.2014 Ex.C-5 through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8. The opposite party sent reply dated 10.3.2014 Ex.C-9 in which they submitted that the demand notice dated 14.11.2013 was issued to the complainant on deposit of Rs. 84652/- and as per circular No. 43/2013 dated 29.8.2013 under the scheme in question the last date for depositing the amount was 15.11.2013. But the complainant did not deposit the amount by 15.11.2013.. As such the complainant was told that her name shall now be considered in the ordinary list and not under preferantional ARTC scheme. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that opposite party issued demand notice dated 14.11.2013 and the last date for depositing the amount was 15.11.2013 . The demand notice was sent through post . So it is not possible to reach the said letter to the complainant by 15.11.2013. Not only this no date was mentioned in the said demand notice as to when the said demand notice was posted to the complainant which clearly speaks about the malafide intention of the opposite party. He ,therefore, submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that Santokh Singh husband of the complainant deposited the security with the opposite party for tubewell connection under ARTC scheme . Said Santokh Singh expired and after his death complainant being his widow got transferred the said application for connection in her name by deposit of requisite charges vide receipt datd 10.6.2013. Accordingly the said application for connection was transferred in the name of complainant on 13.11.2013 and on 14.11.2013 notice was sent to the consumer through post to deposit an amount of Rs. 84652/- as charges under the scheme and duplicate copy of the same was given to the complainant by hand because the scheme was valid upto 15.11.2013. But the complainant failed to deposit the said amount within time. Therefore, her case was converted into general category and now when her turn will come, her connection will be released . On 29.11.2013 the complainant filed an application for extension of time for deposit of amount under ARTC scheme and the same was forwarded to the competent authority. So the opposite party has no deficiency of service towards the complainant as it is a policy matter as per the circular vide cirular No. 43/2013 dated 29.8.2013.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that Santokh Singh husband of complainant applied for tubewell electric connection under ARTC scheme by depositing proper fee with the opposite party. However, said Santokh Singh expired and complainant deposited the requisite fee vide receipt dated 10.6.2013 Ex.C-2 with the opposite party and the name of complainant was substituted in place of Santokh Singh original applicant, in the record of the opposite party. As such the complainant became applicant for tubewell electric connection. Opposite party issued demand notice bearing No.1442 dated 14.11.2013 Ex.C-3/Ex.OP8 directing the complainant to deposit Rs. 84652/- as service connection and estimated cost by 15.11.2013. The complainant was also asked to submit the test report which shall be checked by the JE,. Not only this there is condition 8 in the aforesaid notice Ex.C-3/Ex.OP8 that in case the complainant/customer wants to get the date of demand notice extended, he/she may do so by depositing requisite fee of Rs. 500/- 7 days before the expiry of the date of demand notice i.e. date of deposit of the test report and service connection charges. Not only the complainant was also required to give affidavit duly attested by Tehsildar alongwith jamabandi to the effect that he/she is the owner of land 2.5 acre or less than 5 acre . All this shows that complainant who is widow and this fact is known to the opposite party as they have already changed the name of the complainant as applicant in place of her husband Santokh Singh, who has since expired, regarding the tubewell connection under ARTC scheme, issued notice to the complainant on 14.11.2013, directing her to deposit the test report from recognized contractor duly checked by JE. She was also directed to submit affidavit duly attested by Tehsildar alongwith Jamabandi to the effect that she has land measuring 2.5 acre only or less than 5 acre of land. She was also directed to deposit Rs. 84,652/- as service connection charges with the opposite party by 15.11.2013 which fully proves that she was given only one day notice. Said notice was sent through post to the complainant which must have been despatched by the evening on 14.11.2013 and it is not possible for the postal authorities to deliver the said demand notice/letter to the complainant who is resident of Village Dhianpur Tehsil Baba Bakala on the next day i.e. 15.11.2013 . No doubt the opposite party has alleged that they have given a copy of the demand notice to the complainant by hand on the same day i.e. on 14.11.2013. But the opposite party could not produce any evidence regarding handing over the copy of the demand notice to the complainant on 14.11.2013 . No record of the opposite party has been produced regarding receipt of demand notice by complainant nor the signatures of the complainant or any authorized representative of the complainant were taken on the office copy of the demand notice which could prove that a copy of the demand notice was handed over to the complainant on 14.11.2013. So it stands fully proved that the said demand notice Ex.C-3/OP8 was not delivered to the complainant by 15.11.2013, the last date for depositing the test report, affidavit duly attested by Tehsildar, copy of jamabandi and a huge amount of Rs. 84652/-. Apart from this the complainant is a widow residing in country side i.e. rural area and it is not possible for such a widow to arrange the aforesaid documents i.e. test report, affidavit duly attested by Tehsildar, copy of jamabandi within a short period of one day. It is also not possible for a widow residing in rural area to arrange such a huge amount of Rs. 84652/- and deposit the same with the opposite party within one day. Apart from this the complainant herself has written letter dated 29.11.2013 to the opposite party in which she has categorically stated that she has received the aforesaid demand notice on 29.11.2013 when the date for depositing of aforesaid documents/fee has already expired on 15.11.2013 and she requested for extension of time to deposit the aforesaid documents as well as fee with the opposite party for the electric tubewell connection, but the opposite party did not consider her request on the ground that the last date for deposit of fee and documents as stated in the demand notice was 15.11.2013 under the ARTC scheme.
9. The entire above discussion fully proves that the opposite party has just completed the formalities fully knowing that it is not possible to complete the acts and formalities mentioned in the demand notice, within one day and even fully knowing that the said demand notice could not be served to the complainant by the next day i.e. 15.11.2013, the last date mentioned in the demand notice to deposit the aforesaid documents as well as huge amount and that too for particularly a widow lady living in rural area. All this has been done by the officials of the opposite parties with mischievious motive to ignore the complainant from her right to get electric tubewell connection under ARTC scheme. No prudent person can do such thing in a day as demanded in the demand notice Ex.C-3/OP8. This demand notice cannot be said to be a proper notice rather this demand notice is liable to be declared as no notice in the eyes of law giving such a short span of time to fulfill so many formalities and deposit of huge amount of Rs. 84652/- and even fully knowing that said demand notice cannot be served to the complainant within one day. The opposite party has failed to prove on record that a copy of the demand notice was handed over to the complainant on the same day i.e.14.11.2013 as alleged by the opposite party. The said demand notice was actually received by the complainant on 29.11.2013 as per letter received by the opposite party from the complainant Ex.OP7. So the complainant has been deprived of her right to get electric tubewell connection under ARTC scheme mischieviously by the officials/officers of the opposite party.
10. Consequently we hold that the said demand notice Ex.C-3/OP8 is no notice in the eyes of law. Resultantly the complaint is partly allowed with costs and the opposite parties are directed to issue fresh demand notice to the complainant giving her proper time/reasonable time not less than 7 days to complete the formalities mentioned in the demand notice and to deposit such a huge amount i.e. fee of service connection with the opposite party. Opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order 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.
8.06.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
