DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No. CC/10/398 of 29.5.2010     

                                                Decided on: 19.11.2010

Anmol Singh aged about 64 years son of Sh.Kartar Singh, resident of village Jahlan, Tehsil & District, Patiala, at present resident of 101, Kartarpura Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.

2.                 Chief Engineer/Commercial Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala.

3.                 Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Kalyan(Rakhra),District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.                                   

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.Inderjit Singh, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sarv Sh.B.M.Singh & K.S.Sidhu, Advocates   

For opposite parties:     Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj,Advocate

                                         ORDER

SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                                      Complainant Anmol Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against  the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.

2.                                   As per averments made in the complaint the case

of   the complainant is like this:-

                                      That the father of the complainant Sh.Kartar Singh son of Sh.Inder Singh applied for tubewell connection to be installed on the agriculture land which he had taken on lease at village Jahlan, Tehsil & District Patiala, vide application No.11473 dated 3.6.1988 and deposited the requisite security amounting to Rs.590/- vide receipt No.225 book No.70685 dated 3.6.1988and earnest money amounting to Rs.240/- vide receipt No.226 book No.70685/- dated 3.6.1988. Since Sh.Kartar Singh had deposited fee for obtaining electric connection, therefore, he became consumer of the opposite parties in the matter of process of providing services for grant of electric connection. Since the father of the complainant expired on 9.9.1995, as such the complainant became the consumer of the opposite parties being the legal heir/beneficiary of late Kartar Singh. That the opposite parties issued the demand notice bearing no.984 dated 29.3.2001 addressed to Sh.Kartar Singh since expired, directing him to deposit a sum of Rs.22500/- as service connection charges and also to fulfill other requisite formalities. The said demand notice was not delivered to the complainant due to the reasons best known to the opposite parties. However, the complainant applied for the supply of said demand notice on 13.12.2002 immediately when the complainant came to know about the same. The opposite parties have delivered a duplicate copy of the ibid demand notice to the complainant. That as per the instructions of the opposite parties, issued vide commercial circular No.28/2001, in case of A.P.applicant the demand notice period can be extended subject to deposit of extension fee of Rs.500/- for each three months and further the field officers have been directed to insure by while extension in demand notice period, that such an extension shall only be given to the original consumer or his legal heir at the original site. That the complainant being legal heir of Sh.Kartar Singh made a representation dated 25.5.2007 to the opposite party no.3 requesting therein that he intended to avail the tubewell connection by depositing all the requisite charge specified by the opposite parties vide their commercial circular No.28/2001, issued by opposite party no.2, vide memo No.28822/29552/SMI-10/SMI-12 dated 9.4.2001 and requested that his case may be forwarded to the competent authority for necessary approval. That the opposite party no.3 vide his memo No.198 dated 6.2.2008 had informed the complainant that his case was sent to the Senior Xen Operation Division West, Patiala who raised objections vide his endst. No.766 dated 22.1.2008 that the fard in support of possession of land has been submitted by the complainant was in the name of Mahant of the Dera and cultivator has been shown as Kartar Singh son of Inder Singh, as such Fard in the name of the complainant be furnished and also to tender affidavit that the connection would be installed on the same place/ land, where the same was actually applied for. Necessary/requisite reply to the ibid letter was given to the opposite parties by the complainant. That the opposite party no.3 vide his letter No.1058 dated 23.6.2008 intimated to the complainant that after completing all the formalities and complied with the objections raised by the higher authorities, the case has again been sent to the Senior Xen West Division, Patiala, vide memo no.1009 dated 10.6.2008 for obtaining approval for extension of his demand notice period. That the complainant had sought certain clarification and present status of his application/representation dated 25.7.2007 for extension in demand notice period under RTI Act and in response thereto Senior Xen West Division,Patiala vide his letter No.10185 dated 29.12.2009 intimated that since the record of his office was shifted from one building to another building through trucks, the case of the complainant was mixed with some old record and the same was not traceable. However, the same was forwarded to the competent authority for its approval on top priority immediately when the file was traced. That the opposite party no.2 vide his memo no.14191 dated 16.3.2009 addressed to Engineer in Chief/South P.S.E.B. Patiala, has raised certain objections. However, the case was again referred to opposite party no.2 by the Chief Engineer South Patiala, for necessary sanction. That the opposite party no.3 has intimated vide his memo no.323 dated 25.3.2010 that the complainant’s case was considered by the competent authority i.e. opposite party no.2 and the same was rejected on the ground that the original site, where the applicant(Kartar Singh) had originally applied for the tubewell connection is not in the name of the complainant as such the extension in demand notice can not be allowed. That the act of the opposite parties in not extending the demand notice period and in not releasing the tubewell connection to the complainant son of late Kartar Singh, is illegal, null and void abinitio, unjust, improper, malafide against the mandatory provisions of law and principles of natural justice. That the act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service and also amounts to unfair trade practice, as such the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.25000/-.Hence this complaint.

3.                                   Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties being legal heir/beneficiary of late Kartar Singh since no motor connection has been issued/released in the name of Kartar Singh and late Sh.Kartar Singh had only applied for the motor electricity connection. That the request of the complainant for revival of request to avail the tubewell connection was subject to sanction of the competent authority. That the case of complainant was submitted to the requisite competent authority for its sanction but the same has been rejected by the competent authority vide memo no.11987 dated 4.3.2010 by the office of Chief Engineer, Commercial,Patiala on the ground that the complainant does not own any land in his own name where the said tubewell connection is required hence the subject motor connection can not be sanctioned or released to the complainant. That motor tubewell connection can only be sanctioned/released to an individual in his name provided the individual in whose name motor connection is applied/released owns land in his name, where the subject tubewell connection is being sought for. Since the complainant does not own any land in his name where the connection is asked for hence he is not entitled for motor connection hence his request for sanction/release of motor tubewell connection has been rightly rejected by the competent sanctioning authority as per laid down procedure, rules and regulations. That applicant may register his/her name for release/sanction of tubewell motor electricity connection after deposit of fee for registration for the same but detailed scruting of documents and its eligibility is carried out only at the time of release/sanction of tubewell connection to the applicant since there is considerable time gap in the registration to be on waiting list and subsequent sanction/release connection to the applicant. The case of complainant for release of tubewell connection was rejected by the competent authority after due deliberation as per rules since the motor connection to an individual could be released at the site only in case the individual owns land in his name. Since the complainant does not own any land at the site in his name hence the motor connection could not be issued in his name as per rules. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation since the action on the part of the opposite parties in this case has been legal, bonafide and transparent as per laid down procedures, rules and regulations and there is no illegality in it. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties to the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.

4.                                   The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record.

5.                                   The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.

 6.                                  The case of opposite parties is that the request of the complainant for revival of request to avail tubewell connection was subject to sanction of competent authority. The case of complainant was submitted to the requisite  competent authority for its sanction but the same has been rejected by the competent authority vide memo No.11987 dated 4.3.2010,Ex.R2 by the office of Chief Engineer Commercial,Patiala on the ground that the complainant does not own any land in his own name where the said tubewell connection is required. Hence the motor connection can not be sanctioned or released to the complainant. It is also the case of the opposite parties that the motor tubewell connection can only be sanctioned/released to an individual in his name provided the individual in whose name motor connection is applied/released owns land in his name where the tubewell connection is being sought for. Since the complainant does not own any land in his name where the connection is asked for hence he is not entitled for motor connection and hence his request for sanction/release of motor tubewell connection has been rightly rejected by the competent sanctioning authority as per laid down procedure, rules and regulations.

7.                                   We have carefully considered the averments of the parties.

8.                          The opposite parties have placed on record a copy of jamabandi ,Ex.R8/7 for the year 2005-06.The jamabandi relates to Khata No.1 Khatoni No.64 in which the father of the complainant has been shown as a lessee and in the column of ownership Dera Baba Mangni Ram has been shown as the owner of the land where father of the complainant sought electric connection. So the ownership has been shown in the name of Dera Baba Mangni Ram. The copy of jamabandi further shows that Kartar Singh father of the complainant was in possession as a lessee from 1981-2001.The copy of death certificate of Kartar Singh would show that he died on 9.9.1995.The demand notice,Ex.C9 was issued on 29.3.2001 to Kartar Singh father of the complainant. The complainant vide his application,Ex.C11 dated 25.5.2007 had written to the opposite parties for revival of demand notice,Ex.C9 and the competent authority vide letter,Ex.R2 dated 4.3.2010 had rejected the application of complainant for extension of demand notice. The complainant was required to prove on record that the father of the complainant had applied for the same site. The complainant has failed to prove on record that this land is the same which was in possession of his father or his father had applied for the connection in the said land. The  name move the father of the complainant does not stand in the jamabandi,Ex.R8/7.Admittedly father of the complainant as per the death certificate,Ex.C2 had died on 9.9.1995.So even no copy of revenue officer showing the name change in column of possession has been produced on the record by the complainant. It was for the complainant to submit the jamabandi of the land in which he had applied for the AP connection. As the connection can only be given for the said site and not in any other land as per circular No.28/2001.In other words the complainant has not placed on record any jamabandi which could show that he is in possession of the land in which his father had applied for the AP connection. So the connection could not be released to the complainant due to the failure of the complainant himself to submit the jamabandi for the land for which he had applied for the connection. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

9.                                   In the result the complaint merits dismissal and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

                                      File be consigned to the record.

Pronounced.

Dated:19.11.2010.

                                                                             President

                                                                             Member

                                                                             Member