| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 59 of 18-03-2019 Decided on : 15-06-2023 Baldev Kaur (now deceased) W/o Hamir Singh, R/o Village Sangat Kalan, Tehsil and District Bathinda, through her legal heir Gurlal Singh S/o Hamir Singh R/o Village Sangat Klan, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman cum Managing Director The S.D.O./Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Sangat, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Navpreet Singh, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Abhey Singla, counsel for opposite parties. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Baldev Kaur (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Consumer Protection Act, 2019 here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (now Commission) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & anoher (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). It is pertinent to mention here that initially this complaint was filed by Baldev Kaur, but during the proceedings of this case, Baldev Kaur died on 12-02-2022 and accordingly vide order dated 13-6-2023 of this Commission, Gurlal Singh, was brought on record as LR of deceased Baldev Kaur. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that vide application No. 40757 dated 30-11-2016 Baldev Kaur, applied for tubewell connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota of the opposite parties. The opposite parties on receipt of all the papers/file and after satisfying themselves about the eligibility of the complainant to get the tubewell electric connection under chairman's discretionary Quota, had sent communication and had sent letter No. 8090 dated 6-12-2016 with copy of same to complainant vide which it was intimated to her that necessary sanction has been granted and she was asked to deposit Rs. 11,000/-. Thereafter the complainant submitted the required documents to the opposite party No.2 and the complainant was directed to deposit amounts and accordingly the complainant vide receipt No. 293 dated 21.12.2016 deposited Rs.11,000/-and the complainant also furnished an affidavit/undertaking as required by the opposite parties. The learned counsel for the complainant has also referred case law of Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, in First Appeal No. 555 of 2018 decided on 8-10-2018 in case titled as PSPCL Vs Baltej Singh. It is alleged that the complainant also completed all the other formalities as required by the opposite parties but no motor connection has been released to her till date inspite of the fact that she repeatedly visited the office of opposite parties but the matter is being postponed by them on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that due to non release of connection by the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering mental tension and agony and huge financial loss for which she claims compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to release the electric tubewell connection in favour of the complainant and pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by her act, conduct and acquiescence, this Commission has got no jurisdiction to decide the complaint and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, it has been pleaded that complainant made request for allotment of Tubewell connection under 'Chairman Discretionary quota on priority. Her request was accepted by the competent authority and a Tubewell Connection under Chairman Discretionary quota on priority was allotted to the complainant by Chief Engineer/Commercial, PSPCL, Patiala vide his office letter No. 40756/Approved/S-5/152/Mansa dated 30.11.2016. According to conditions mentioned in the said memo, applicant was required to deposit Rs.2,000/- per BHP as processing fee along with initial security amount of Rs.200/- per BHP. Accordingly complainant deposited Rs. 11,000/- vide receipt No. 293 dated 21-12-2016. The complainant also submitted certain documents including A&A Form, undertaking, affidavit, ration card, self declaration and another affidavit to the department. The opposite parties have further pleaded that demand notice was yet to be issued to the complainant and the complainant was yet to deposit the actual expenditure, in the meantime on 4.1.2017, Modal Code of conduct was imposed due to elections. Thereafter on 11.1.2017, Punjab Government imposed status quo on all old pending AP Applications in any category till further order. So, after 11.1.2017, no demand notice was issued to any applicant against any pending AP application, in any category, as per guidelines of Punjab Government. No demand notice was issued to the complainant. The Tubewell connection under chirman's discretionary quota can only be issued as per directions of Government. Till new directions are received, no connection can be released to the complainant. On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their version as pleaded in legal objections and detailed above. After cotroverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint and has also relied upon case law reported in 1996 (1) CPR 26 decided by Hon'ble Rajasthan State Consumer Commission, Jaipur. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 18.3.2019 (Ex. C-1) and the documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-11). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Singh, A.E. dated 9-5-2019 (Ex. OP-1/1) and the documents (Ex. OP-1/2 &o Ex. OP-1/3). The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as pleaded in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The complainant has pleaded that she applied under Chairman's Discretionary Quota on priority basis. This fact is not disputed by opposite parties. The complainant has placed on record copy of letter dated 30.11.2016, (Ex.C-3) whereby her request was considered and it was decided by the competent authority to allow her tubewell connection subject to conditions mentioned in the letter. It is not the case of opposite parties that the complainant has not fulfilled the conditions. The only plea taken by the opposite parties is that in the meanwhile on 4-1-2017, Model Code of Conduct was imposed due to elections and thereafter on 11-1-2017, Government of Punjab imposed status quo on all the pending applications, in any category, till further orders and as such, thereafter no demand notice was issued to any person. However, this Commission is of the considered view that since the complainant has completed all the formalities prior to 4-1-2017 and had deposited the amounts as per directions of the opposite parties, as such, opposite parties cannot deny the electricity connection to the complainant by taking excuse of the ban imposed by government. Since the complainant had applied for the connection prior to 11-1-2017, as such, directions of Government of Punjab, issued on 11-1-2017 are in no way applicable to the case of the complainant and the complainant is fully entitled to electric tube well connection and the opposite parties have no right to deny the same. For the reasons recorded above and by relying upon judgement of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, the complaint is partly accepted and the opposite parties are directed to release the tubewell electric connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota, as already sanctioned/allowed to the complainant after preparation of estimate to deposit actual expenditure as per condition No. 2 of the letter Ex. C-3. It is made clear that the complainant will be liable to deposit the charges and complete the formalities, if any legally required. The compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced:- 15-06-2023 - (Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
