Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/29

Jagpinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

26 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        29

Date of Institution :  19.01.2017

Date of Decision :    26.05.2017

 

Jagpinder Singh aged about 35 years s/o Gurnek Singh, s/o Arjan Singh r/o Village Phide Kalan, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.,  through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, DS Sub Division, PSPCL, Bariwala, Head Quarter Sarai Naga.                                   

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh  Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh B B Khurana, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.92,980/- raised vide letter dt 24.02.2016, to release the tube well connection and for further directing them to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Arjan Singh grandfather of complainant applied for tubewell connection of 5 BHP in his land situated at village Phide Kalan on 13.12.1991 and deposited security with OP-2, but after the death of his grandfather, complainant applied for change of name in the application of tubewell connection and completed all the requisite formalities for this and thus, application was changed in the name of complainant. it is submitted that complainant visited Ops many times with request to install his tubewell connection, but every time, he was told that his turn has not come. It is further averred that OP-2 issued demand notice no.666 dt 6.02.2014 in the name of his late grandfather vide which they demanded Rs.65,000/- as service connection charges and this demand notice was issued under Same Area Priority Category. As per policy for release of tubewell connection during year 2013-14 issued vide commercial circular no.32/2013 dt 11.06.2013, the cut off date for issuing demand notice under priority category of same area was upto date, but the cut off date for issuing demand notice under General Category was 1.01.1992. After receiving the same, complainant visited the office of OP-2 and requested them that he applied for release of tubewell connection to him on 13.12.2011 under General Category and as per policy of PSPCL, the demand notice was required to be issued to General Category upto 1.01.1992. As the tubewell connection was applied on 13.12.1991 and demand notice was required to be issued under General Category and service connection charges are also required to be got deposited under general category and not under any priority category. It is further submitted that after verifying the record and as per instructions of PSPCL, Ops got deposited Rs.22,500/-from complainant as per general category charges alongwith Rs.880/-as Additional Security and complainant deposited the same vide receipt no.503/4437 dt 21.02.2014 and completed all formalities, but due to stay by Hon’b;e Green Tribunal, New Delhi, tubewell connection was not released to complainant.  And now, as stay has been vacated by Hon’ble Green Tribunal, New Delhi, instead of releasing tubewell connection,  Ops issued letter no.459 dt 24.02.2016 vide which they demanded Rs.92,980/- more from complainant as service connection charges, which is quite illegal and is against the rules and regulations of Ops. Complainant made several requests to Ops that connection is required to be released to complainant under general category as he applied for same on 13.12.1991, but OP-2 refused to admit his claim and insisted that tubewell can be released to complainant only under Same Category Priority Scheme on payment of charges for the Same Category Priority Scheme and not in general category, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of 92,980/- and release the  tubewell connection under general category and also prayed to pay Rs. one lac as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                   Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 24.01.2017, 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 taking preliminary objections OPs have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the dispute between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before such committee and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On merits also,  ld counsel for OPs have admitted all the allegations levelled by complainant being correct and asserted that there are some reasons for converting the General Category Connection Scheme to SEM (Water logged priority category scheme). It is averred that in year 2009/10, the area of District Sri Muktsar Sahib was declared as Water Logged Area of SEM affected area whereas villages Daggo Romana, Fidde Kalan, Fidde Khurd, Chakk Kalyan and Wander Jatana adjoining Sri Muktsar Sahib were not declared Water Logged affecting areas as these villages fall under Faridkot District. In post 2009/10 these area were also included and declared to be water logged sem affected areas vide letter no.362 dated 7.05.2014. it is further averred that due to ban by Hon’ble Green Tribunal for releasing new tubewell connections, farmers had to do long waiting. Therefore, policy was adopted Ops that applicants waiting for release of connection in water logged area under General Category be given priority over other applicants in general category and thus, to stop further loss of finance and crops, the persons who applied under general category schemes and were badly affected by water logged areas like Fidde Kalan, they were issued demand notice under priority category and therefore demand notice in question was rightly issued to complainant and it is fully in accordance with the policy of State Government and PSPCL and it is quite legal and lawful. All the other allegations have been refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

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 to3 and closed the same.

6                                    In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanjay Sharma as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-4 and closed the evidence.

7                                      The ld Counsel for complainant vehementally  argued that Arjan Singh grandfather of complainant applied for tubewell connection of 5 BHP in his land situated at village Phide Kalan on 13.12.1991 and deposited security with OP-2, but after the death of his grandfather, complainant applied for change of name in the application of tubewell connection and completed all the requisite formalities for this and thus, application was changed in the name of complainant. It is submitted that complainant visited Ops many times with request to install his tubewell connection, but every time, he was told that his turn has not come. It is further averred that OP-2 issued demand notice no.666 dt 6.02.2014 in the name of his late grandfather vide which they demanded Rs.65,000/- as service connection charges and this demand notice was issued under Same Area Priority Category. As per policy for release of tubewell connection during year 2013-14 issued vide commercial circular no.32/2013 dt 11.06.2013, the cut off date for issuing demand notice under priority category of same area was upto date, but the cut off date for issuing demand notice under General Category was 1.01.1992. After receiving the same, complainant visited the office of OP-2 and requested them that he applied for release of tubewell connection to him on 13.12.2011 under General Category and as per policy of PSPCL, the demand notice was required to be issued to General Category upto 1.01.1992. As the tubewell connection was applied on 13.12.1991 and demand notice was required to be issued under General Category and service connection charges are also required to be got deposited under general category and not under any priority category. It is further submitted that after verifying the record and as per instructions of PSPCL, Ops got deposited Rs.22,500/-from complainant as per general category charges alongwith Rs.880/-as Additional Security and complainant deposited the same vide receipt no.503/4437 dt 21.02.2014 and completed all formalities, but due to stay by Hon’b;e Green Tribunal, New Delhi, tubewell connection was not released to complainant.  And now, as stay has been vacated by Hon’ble Green Tribunal, New Delhi, instead of releasing tubewell connection,  Ops issued letter no.459 dt 24.02.2016 vide which they demanded Rs.92,980/- more from complainant as service connection charges, which is quite illegal and is against the rules and regulations of Ops. Complainant made several requests to Ops that connection is required to be released to complainant under general category as he applied for same on 13.12.1991, but OP-2 refused to admit his claim and insisted that tubewell can be released to complainant only under Same Category Priority Scheme on payment of charges for the Same Category Priority Scheme and not in general category, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and due to these acts of OPs, complainant has faced great mental tension, agony and harassment. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

8                              To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of  consumer. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this case. The Ops have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees and complainant should approach such committees to settle his dispute, so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, OPs admitted all the allegations levelled by complainant being correct and also admitted that they issued demand notice for Rs.92,980/- from complainant. It is asserted that there are some reasons for converting the General Category Connection Scheme to SEM (Water logged priority category scheme). It is averred that in year 2009/10, the area of District Sri Muktsar Sahib was declared as Water Logged Area of SEM affected area whereas villages Daggo Romana, Fidde Kalan, Fidde Khurd, Chakk Kalyan and Wander Jatana adjoining Sri Muktsar Sahib were not declared Water Logged affecting areas as these villages fall under Faridkot District. In post 2009/10 these area were also included and declared to be water logged sem affected areas vide letter no.362 dated 7.05.2014. it is further averred that due to ban by Hon’ble Green Tribunal for releasing new tubewell connections, farmers had to do long waiting. Therefore, policy was adopted Ops that applicants waiting for release of connection in water logged area under General Category be given priority over other applicants in general category and thus, to stop further loss of finance and crops, the persons who applied under general category schemes and were badly affected by water logged areas like Fidde Kalan, they were issued demand notice under priority category and therefore demand notice in question was rightly issued to complainant and it is fully in accordance with the policy of State Government and PSPCL and it is quite legal and lawful. All the other allegations are refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

9                              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on file.

10                           The case of the complainant is that Arjan Singh grandfather of complainant applied for tubewell connection of 5 BHP in his land situated at village Phide Kalan on 13.12.1991 and deposited security with OP-2, but after the death of his grandfather, complainant applied for change of name in the application of tubewell connection and completed all the requisite formalities for this and thus, application was changed in the name of complainant. He visited time and again to Ops regarding position of his application and release of tubewell connection, but they told that his turn is yet to come. On 6.02.2014, he received a demand notice for Rs.65,000/-as service connection charges issued under Sem Area Priority Category, whereas he has not applied under any priority category, rather he applied under general category and as per Policy of Ops, vide circular dated 11.06.2013, the cut off list for issuance of tubewell connections was upto 1.1.1992. on it, he approached OP-2 and after verifying record and instructions of Department, they got deposited service connection charges of Rs.22,500/-under general category alongwith addition security of Rs.880/-, but at that time they did not issue any connection as there was a stay against releasing the tubewell connections by Hon’ble Green Tribunal, New Delhi. Now, the stay has been vacated but instead of releasing tubewell connection to complainant, OP-2 issued letter no 459 dated 24.02.2016 demanding Rs.92,980/-as service connection charges under Sem Area Priority Category, which is altogether illegal and is against the instructions of PSPCL as the complainant has applied for connection under general category and in general category, his turn has come and he is entitled to get connection in his category and is not liable to pay service connection charges under Sem Area Priority Category.

11                                      The Ld Counsel for Ops admitted that complainant applied for release of tubewell connection in year 1991 under general category and deposited requisite charges. He further admitted that the complainant deposited service connection charges under general category on 21.02.2014, but he argued that certain area of Punjab falls under sem  i.e water logged area and Government gave directions to issue tubewell connections on priority basis under Sem Area Priority Category. The area of village Phide Kalan also falls under sem area and as per directions of PSPCL, connections in these areas are converted from general category to Sem Area Priority Category. As such, the connection of complainant is also converted into priority category and Ops correctly demanded the service connection charges from complainant under Sem Area Priority Category.

12                                    Now, it is admitted case of the parties that complainant applied for issuance of tubewell connection under general category in the year 1991 and deposited requisite charges. It is further admitted that complainant deposited service connection charges under general category as demanded by Ops in year 2014 but his connection was not released. Now, the case of the Ops is that the village of complainant falls under water logged area and Government issued a scheme to release tubewell connections in water logged areas on priority basis. As such, the connection complainant is converted into priority category and they demanded service connection charges accordingly. Admittedly, as per circular dated 11.06.2013 of PSPCL, the cut off date for issuance of tubewell connection under general category is 1.1.1992 and complainant applied for tubewell connection in general category whereas cut off date for issuance of tubewell connection under Sem Area Priority Category is upto date, whereas complainant applied for issuance of tubewell connection under general category and turn for release of connection to complainant is due. Complainant never demanded issuance of connection out of turn under any priority category, then how Ops can demand service connection charges from him under any priority category. All this amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, present complaint is hereby allowed. The Ops are directed to withdraw the demand notice of Rs.92,980/- issued by them vide letter no.459 dated 24.02.2016 to complainant and to release the tubewell connection to complainant under general category for which he has already deposited service connection charges with them. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 26.05.2017

                                                 Member                  President                                                                     (P Singla)               (Ajit Aggarwal)