DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C. C. No : 95 of 2018
Date of Institution : 11.06.2018
Date of Decision : 22.04.2019
Jasvir Singh aged about 36 years s/o Nachhattar Singh son of Natha Singh r/o Village Rameana, Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot.
...Complainant
Versus
- Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
- Assistant Executive Engineer, DS Sub Division, PSPCL, Jaitu.
.........Ops
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Mohan Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd for not releasing tubewell connection and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony
cc no.-95 of 2018
suffered by complainant besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Natha Singh/ grandfather of complainant applied for 5 BHP Tube well connection on 28.03.2007 and as per policy, connection was to be released to those who have land up to 5 acres. Grand father of complainant died on 24.05.2015 and thereafter, Bikkar Singh, Kewal Singh and Nachhattar Singh being sons of Natha Singh were his legal heirs. It is submitted that complainant/Jasvir Singh and Balwinder Singh are sons of Nachhattar Singh and all the legal heirs of Natha Singh agreed to release tube well connection in the name of Jasvir Singh and then after completing all the formalities and submission of requisite documents, OP-2 changed the name in application for release of tube well connection and complainant is ready to complete all the formalities as per demand notice issued for release of tubewell connection under priority category. Complainant also got extended the load of tubewell connection from 5 BHP to 7.5 BHP and deposited Rs.500/-on 21.03.2018, but vide letter dated 1.06.2018, Ops have denied releasing tubewell connection to complainant in priority quota on the ground that grandfather of complainant was having land more than 5 acres and tubewell connection under priority category can be granted only to those whose land is less than 5 acres. It is submitted that at the time of giving application for tubewell connection, his grandfather had land less than 5 acres and after his death, application for getting the tubewell connection
cc no.-95 of 2018
is in favour of complainant with consent of all legal heirs of his grandfather and even land possessed by complainant at present is only 9 kanals and 3 marlas and is quite less than 5 acres and thus, complainant is entitled to get issued the tubewell connection in his name under priority category. Complainant made several requests to OPs to release him tubewell connection but all in vain. Though complainant is ready to bear all the expenditure for getting released the tubewell connection, but OPs have never issued him any demand notice and even they have flatly refused to issue him tubewell connection on false ground. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused huge financial loss, inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to release connection under general category 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.
3 Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 12.06.2018, 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 connection has not been issued so
cc no.-95 of 2018
far. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum as complainant submitted false and forged application for getting the demand notice extended with fabricated thumb impression of his grandfather on 20.12.2016, though his grandfather died on 24.05.2015. however, on merits they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted before the Forum that Natha Singh/grandfather of complainant submitted application alongwith A& A Form and jamabandi for year 2007-2008 of village Rameana on date 7.02.2013 for tubewell connection. As per jamabandi, Natha Singh owned 1/16th share of total land of 491 canals 3 marlas. Vide mutationno.5422, Natha Singh inherited land of his mother out of total Khewat No.181-182 having land measuring 535 Kanals and 19 Marlas. In his application Natha Singh mentioned his land from 2.5 to 5 acres and undertook that if his statement was wrong, PSPCL can disconnect the connection at any time without any notice. it is also admitted that legal heirs of Natha Singh gave no objection in favour of Jasvir Singh complainant for getting released the tubewell connection in his name. Prior to change of name of applicant in said application, demand notice was issued to Natha Singh on 4.04.2016. Natha Singh died on 24.05.2015, but his family members never disclosed this fact to Ops. Complainant played fraud by submitting the application for extension of demand notice under thumb impression of Natha Singh on 20.12.2016, though Natha Singh died on 24.05.2015. It is also admitted that complainant got enhanced the load from 5 BHP to
cc no.-95 of 2018
7.5 BHP and paid Rs.500/-on 21.05.2018. while checking the jamabandi for year 2007-2008, it was found that land possessed by Natha Singh was owner of 41 kanals and 17 marlas. As per Jamabandi for year 2012-13, Natha Singh was owner of 40 kanals and 18 marlas and out of this land, he sold 5 kanals of his land and thus, he wanted to get the connection by hook or by crook because of he was not entitled to get connection under 5 Acres of land scheme. When complainant came to know that Natha Singh is not entitled to get tubewell connection under this scheme, he gave application dated 1.06.2018 wherein admitted that his deceased grandfather was owner of more than 5 acres of land and his land was sold in December, 2014. Thus, application of grandfather of complainant was not in conformity with the stipulated scheme for providing tubewell connection to farmers having less than 5 acres of land. It is averred that grandfather of complainant was not entitled for connection and complainant is also not entitled to get tubewell connection. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.
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 6 and closed the same.
cc no.-95 of 2018
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Kulwinder Singh Sharma Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-75 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 Natha Singh/ grandfather of complainant applied for 5 BHP Tube well connection on 28.03.2007 and as per policy, connection was to be released to those farmers who have land up to 5 acres. His grandfather died on 24.05.2015 and after his death all the legal heirs of Natha Singh/ grandfather of complainant gave no objection to release tube well connection in the name of complainant and then, after competing all formalities, OP-2 changed the name in application for release of tube well connection. Complainant is ready to complete all the formalities as per demand notice and also got extended the load of tubewell connection from 5 BHP to 7.5 BHP and have also deposited Rs.500/-on 21.03.2018, but vide letter dated 1.06.2018, Ops have denied releasing tubewell connection in priority quota on the ground that grandfather of complainant was having more than 5 acres land and thus, tubewell connection cannot be issued to him. In reply, OPs have sternly denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted
cc no.-95 of 2018
that tubewell connection cannot be issued to complainant as his grandfather was having more than 5 acres of land and as per 5 acre scheme his grandfather was not entitled to get released tubewell connection under said 5 acres scheme.
9 To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant placed on record copy of receipt dated 21.03.2018 that shows that he got enhanced the load from 5 BHP to 7.5 BHP. Ld Counsel for complainant brought before the Forum that in year 2007 at the time of filing the application with OPs for release of tubewell connection under 5 acres land scheme, Natha Singh grandfather of complainant was having land less than five acres. Though said Natha Singh inherited land from the share of his mother Dhan Kaur and his land exceeded 5 acres but later on he sold some land and entitlement became less than 5 acres and after the death of Natha Singh grandfather of complainant, vide no objection by all legal heirs of Natha Singh, OPs changed the name of applicant in said application and now, application for getting released the tubewell connection under 5 acres land scheme is in name of complainant who is also having land less than 5 acres. It is clear from the jamabandi that complainant has only 9 kanals and 3 marlas of land which is less than 5 acres and therefore complainant is entitled for tubewell connection under priority category.
10 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is made out that as per 5 Acres Scheme of OPs, original applicant Natha
cc no.-95 of 2018
Singh had less than 5 acres of land at the time of moving application for getting released the tube well under priority category and in between for some time, he owned land more than 5 acres, but after sale of some land, again he owned land less than 5 acres at the time of his death and after death of Natha Singh his grandson/complainant received no objection from all legal heirs of Natha Singh for transferring the said application for release of tubewell connection in the name of complainant. Complainant possess only 9 kanals and 3 marlas of land and as per scheme of OPs, it is less than 5 acres and therefore complainant is entitled for tubewell connection under priority category. Therefore, complaint filed by complainant stands hereby allowed. OPs are directed to issue tube well connection in the name of complainant and are ordered to get deposited the requisite fees fees and Service Connection Charges from complainant for 7.5 BHP tubewell connection as per scheme. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days 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. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 22.04.2019
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
