Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/168

Banta Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Harsimran Singh Sarao

03 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

                                                             C. C. No :                168 of 2020

 Date of Institution :       02.11.2020

              Date of Decision :          03.01.2024

Banta Singh aged about 73  years, son of Gurmukh Singh, resident of House No.1036, Street No.10 (R), Dogar Basti, Faridkot.

           ...Complainant

Versus

1.  Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, the Mall, Patiala.
2. Chief Engineer Commercial, Punjab State Corporation Ltd. the Mall, Patiala.
3. Deputy Chief Engineer/Sales-2, Punjab State Corporation Ltd. the Mall, Patiala.
4. Chief Engineer West Zone, Punjab State Corporation Ltd. Bathinda.
5. Deputy Chief  Engineer (DS) Circle, Punjab State Corporation Ltd. Faridkot.
6. Senior Executive Engineer, (DS) Division, Punjab State Corporation Ltd. Faridkot.
7. Assistant Executive Engineer, (DS) Sub Division, Punjab State Corporation Ltd. Golewala.

 

    .......OPs

          Complaint under Section 35 of the

          Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

 

cc no. - 168 of 2020

 

Quorum:    Smt Kiranjit Kaur Arora, President,

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Vishav Kant Garg, Member)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/OPs for not reviving the cancelled tube well application dt 15.09.1989 for release of tubewell connection, seeking directions to OPs to revive the same and to extend the time period of demand notice dated 08.04.2005 and for further directing them to release the tubewell connection and to pay Rs.3 lacs as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant applied for a tubewell connection under General category for irrigation of his land in Village Arrayian Wala under Sub Division, Golewala on 15.09.1989 and deposited security of Rs.160/-against receipt dated 15.09.1989.  It is alleged that complainant visited the office of OPs several times, but every time, he was told by OP-7 that his turn for tubewell connection has not come. In January, 2019, complainant came to know that OPs have released tubewell connections to those junior to the application of complainant. Complainant approached OPs and enquired about all this, then he came to know that demand notice

cc no. - 168 of 2020

against the application of complainant was issued vide letter no.956 dated 08.04.205, but in reality, complainant never received said demand notice. Thereafter, complainant applied with OP-7 for extension of demand notice period as per prevailing instructions of the PSPCL on 01.02.2019 and also completed requisite formalities as recommended by OP-7. After that, OP-7 forwarded his case for revival of cancelled application and for extension of demand notice period to OP-6 and OP-6 forwarded the same to higher authorities.  After that, complainant received letter no.409 dated 08.05.2020 issued by OP-7 wherein complainant was informed that his application dated 01.02.2019 for revival of application for grant of tubewell connection and extension of demand notice period, cannot be revived as per Commercial Circular No.06/2020 dated 10.02.2020. The extension of demand notice period is limited upto ten years, but in present case, period for extension of demand notice from the date of its issuance, has been lapsed and therefore, they rejected the application of complainant.  Complainant submitted that he applied for extension of demand notice period on 01.02.2019 and his case was forwarded as per instructions of competent authority of PSPCL and therefore, his case was required to be considered as per instructions that were prevailing on 01.02.2019. Thereafter, complainant approached OPs several times with requests to them to revive his application for grant of tubewell connection, but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and this act and conduct of OPs has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking

cc no. - 168 of 2020

directions to OPs to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- besides the main relief. Hence, this complaint.

3                  Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 05.11.2020, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                        On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement wherein denied all the allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as demand notice for grant of tubewell connection was duly issued to complainant, but complainant himself did not abide by the terms and conditions of the demand notice and due to non fulfilment of requirements of demand notice,  same was cancelled. Application for extension of demand notice was given by complainant on 1.02.2019 after a gap of more than 15 years, which was also duly forwarded to the head office and same was declined vide CC No.6/2020. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs  and further submitted that application for extension of demand notice moved by complainant was declined in view of CC No.06/2020 on the ground that gap for moving the application for extension of demand notice was more than 15 years. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

cc no. - 168 of 2020

5                              Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-5 and then, closed the same.

6                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh, Sub Divisional Officer, PSPCL, Golewala as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-3 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                             We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

8                                    From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that he applied for a tubewell connection under General category for irrigation of his land on 15.09.1989 and deposited security against proper receipt.  As per complainant, whenever, he approached OPs, he was told that his turn has not come, but in January, 2019, he came to know that OPs released tubewell connections to those, who applied after him. Meaning thereby, tubewell connections were released to those whose application was junior to the application of complainant.  It further came to his notice that demand notice for release of tubewell connection was issued to him vide letter no.956 dated 08.04.205, but in reality, he never received said demand notice.  Thereafter, complainant applied for extension of demand notice period as per prevailing instructions of the PSPCL on 01.02.2019, but his case for revival of

cc no. - 168 of 2020

cancelled application and for extension of demand notice period was rejected vide letter no.409 dated 08.05.2020 issued on the ground that as per Commercial Circular No.06/2020 dated 10.02.2020, the extension of demand notice period is limited upto ten years, but in present case, period for extension of demand notice from the date of its issuance, has been lapsed and therefore, they rejected the application of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the hand plea taken by OPs is that demand notice for grant of tubewell connection was duly issued to complainant, but complainant himself did not abide by the terms and conditions of the demand notice and due to non fulfilment of requirements of demand notice,  same was cancelled. Application for extension of demand notice was given by complainant on 1.02.2019 after a gap of more than 15 years, which was declined in view of Commercial Circular No. 06/2020, vide which extension can be limited upto ten years but in present case period of more than 15 years has been passed since the date of issuance of notice i.e 08.04.2005.

9                          From the above discussion and keeping in view the documents placed on record, it is observed that matter regarding issuance of demand notice relates to 2005 and Department has rightly declined the application of complainant for extension of time period of demand notice in view of Commercial Circular No. 06/2020, vide which extension can be limited upto ten years but in present case,  more than 15 years have been passed since the date of issuance of notice i.e 08.04.2005.  Even vide Ex C-2 which is a letter written by complainant to OPs, there is admission of the part of complainant that due to his

cc no. - 168 of 2020

residence at  Faridkot, he did not receive demand notice issued on date 08.04.2005 and therefore, he could not make compliance of said demand notice dated 08.04.2005. As complainant himself failed to abide by the terms and conditions of demand notice dated 08.04.2005 within time and even failed to get revived the cancellation of said notice within period of ten years of limitation, therefore, he cannot be granted benefit of his own wrong act. This Commission is of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs, therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, there are no orders as to the costs.

10                   Complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

11                   Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission :

Dated: 03.01.2024             

 

          Member                                    President                      

                     (Vishav Kant Garg)          (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)