Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/147

Jaskarn Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

N.K Maheshwari

15 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    C. C. No :               147 of 2019

Date of Institution :      12.06.2019

Date of Decision :         15.11.2021

 

Jaskaran Singh aged about 34 years s/o Jaggar Singh, r/o Kothe Kehar Singh Wale, Gurusar Road, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through SDO / Authorised Person / In-Charge, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through XEN Faridkot, District Faridkot.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

cc no.147 of 2019

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present: Sh Neeraj Kumar Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Mohan Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

(Param Pal Kaur, Member)

ORDER

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops for not releasing tubewell connection under Chairman’s Discretionary Quota on priority basis and for seeking directions to Ops to release the tube well connection and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- 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 complainant applied for tubewell connection and vide memo no. 48681/ Approved / S-5/167/Jaitu dated 26.12.2016, connection was ordered to be released to complainant under Chairman’s Discretionary Quota on priority basis subject to completion of

cc no.147 of 2019

requisite formalities. Though complainant was ready and is still willing to deposit the requisite fee and to complete all formalities. For this purpose, complainant approached office of OPs on 3.01.2017, but they refused to accept the documents and did not  receive the requisite fee from complainant on the ground that code of conduct was imposed and also refused to release the tubewell connection to him. It is submitted that complainant requested Ops that there is time limit for release of tubewell  connection and very short time was left for paddy season for which tubewell connection was very necessary for irrigation of crop, but OPs ignored all the requests of complainant and neither accepted his documents nor got deposited requisite fees from complainant. Complainant made repeated requests to OPs to release the tubewell connection, but all in vain 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 release the  tubewell connection and also prayed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

cc no.147 of 2019

3                                                   Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 03.07.2019, 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 that complainant is not their consumer as no connection is issued so far and no services are being provided by them to complainant and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that before releasing the connection, demand notice is issued for compliance of rules and regulations of PSPCL, but vide D.O. No.1/33 dated 11.01.2017, Punjab Government issued directions to maintain status quo till further orders with respect to all the applicants of tubewell connections and thereafter, PSPCL vide commercial circular no.20/2018 and memo no.177/181/SSM-414/AP Policy/L dated 13.05.2018 gave directions that no fresh notices are to be issued for time being to eligible applicants as per present cut off dates under any general or priority categories. Instruction regarding extending the

cc no.147 of 2019

validity period of the sanction letters already issued under Chairmanship Discretionary Quota shall be issued later on. It is further averred that neither Punjab Government nor PSPCL has issued directions to release the connection issued under Chairman Priority Category and connections would be released on receipt of instructions and releasing the connection under Chairman Quota is a policy matter of PSPCL. Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that PSPCL is working under the guidelines issued by government from time to time and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 7 and closed the same.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of

 

cc no.147 of 2019

Rajinder Singh as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-7 and closed the evidence.

7                           We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well 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 was got sanctioned electrical tubewell connection under Chairman quota vide memo no.48681 dt 26.12.2016. He was ready and is still willing to immediately complete all the formalities to obtain tubewell connection. Complainant approached OPs and requested them to accept his documents and release connection as per quota rules, but OPs flatly refused to take the documents on the ground that code of conduct was imposed and also refused to release the tubewell connection to him. It is further submitted that there was time limit for release of tubewell  connection and very short time was left for paddy season for which tubewell connection was very necessary for irrigation of crop, but OPs ignored his genuine requests, but OPs flatly refused to take the documents. Grievance of

cc no.147 of 2019

complainant is that despite several requests, OPs did not release connection under Chairman quota to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, Ops stressed mainly on the point that before releasing the connection, demand notice is issued for compliance of rules and regulations of PSPCL, but vide D.O. No.1/33 dated 11.01.2017, Punjab Government issued directions to maintain status quo till further orders with respect to all the applicants of tubewell connections and thereafter, PSPCL vide commercial circular no.20/2018 and memo no.177/181/SSM-414/AP Policy/L dated 13.05.2018 gave directions that no fresh notices are to be issued for time being to eligible applicants as per present cut off dates under any general or priority categories. Instruction regarding extending the validity period of the sanction letters already issued under Chairmanship Discretionary Quota shall be issued later on. It is further averred that neither Punjab Government nor PSPCL has issued directions to release the connection issued under Chairman Priority Category and connections would be released on receipt of instructions and releasing the connection under Chairman Quota is a

cc no.147 of 2019

policy matter of PSPCL. Ops argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9                               Complainant has relied upon documents Ex C-6 which is copy of letter dt 26.12.2016 vide which tubewell connection under said Chairman quota was sanctioned to him. Through Ex C-1 affidavit of complainant, he has reiterated his pleadings. Ex C-7 is the copy of adahar card submitted by complainant. Ex C-5 is copy of Demand Note for New Connection Order dated 03.01.2017 that shows that demand notice for Rs.22,100/-was issued to complainant and vide receipts dated 03.01.2017 Ex C-2 to Ex C-3, complainant deposited Rs.22,100/-with OPs on same day. Ex C-2 to Ex C-3 are copies of receipts that show that complainant deposited requisite fees with Ops for obtaining tubewell connection. Complainant submitted all the relevant documents complete in all respects to OPs but OPs refused to accept the same on the ground that code of conduct has been imposed and asked him to come after elections. Thus,  if code of conduct was imposed then, sanctity of providing three months time to complainant was well deferred after the code of conduct and when

cc no.147 of 2019

complainant again approached OPs, they refused to accept documents on the ground that validity of letter dt 21.12.2016 has no effect. It is observed that complainant submitted the documents well within the prescribed time, rather it is on the part of OPs who did not receive the documents and lingered on the matter. They should have retained the said documents and consideration was to be made on those documents after uplifting of code of conduct, but OPs intentionally did not take up documents and refused to release connection on the ground that statutory period for releasing connection stand expired. Due to imposition of code of conduct, no new project can be implemented but thereafter, it was the duty of OPs to accept the documents and release tubewell connection under Chairman quota. From the careful perusal and after giving thoughtful consideration, it is made out that denial in not accepting documents and not releasing connection under said quota to complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The Ld Counsel for OPs argued that vide D.O. letter dated 11.01.2017, the Government of Punjab issued directions to maintain status quo till further orders with regard to release of tubewell connections and thereafter, PSPCL, vide

cc no.147 of 2019

commercial circular dated 13.04.2018 gave directions that no fresh demand notice be issued to the applicants for release of tube well connection. As such, as per letter of PSPCL, the OPs have not released tube well connection to complainant. The OPs have placed on record copy of letter dated 11.01.2017 as Ex OP-4 and commercial circular dated 13.04.2018 as Ex OP-6. As per Ex OP-5, the PSPCL gave directions to not to issue fresh demand notice against general category or any priority category for AP connections and to release tubewell connection but in the present case, the OPs have already issued demand notice for release of tubewell connection under Chairman Priority Quota to complainant on 21.12.2016 and against this demand notice, the complainant has already deposited the amount of Rs.22,100/- on same date i.e 03.01.2017, which is much prior to imposing status quo by the Government of Punjab on 11.01.2017 and commercial circular dated 13.04.2018. Now, on the basis of these orders of status quo or directions to not to issue fresh demand notice, the OPs cannot withhold the tubewell connection of the complainant. This act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice.

cc no.147 of 2019

10                             In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and OPs are directed to issue tubewell connection to complainant as per Chairman Quota and are further directed to take care in dealing with such cases in future. 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 on

Dated : 15.11.2021

 

                                   (Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)

                                     Member                                Member