Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/97

Lakhvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

08 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No :       97

Date of Institution : 18.07.2014

Date of Decision :   8.01.2015

 

Lakhvir Singh aged about 45 years s/o Gurdit Singh r/o village Machaki Kalan, 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, Punjab State       Power Corporation Ltd., Sadiq.

...Opposite Parties(Ops)

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

                Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

                Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Adv Ld Counsel for complainant,

   Sh Rajneesh Garg, Adv Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(A K Mehta, President)

                                           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 allowing the complainant to deposit service connection charges and other documents against demand notice no. 643 dt 28.01.2014 and for not releasing tube well connection and for seeking directions to Ops to allow the complainant to deposit service connection charges and other documents from complainant and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs 50,000/-for causing harassment, inconvenience and mental agony and Rs 10,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 30.03.2007, complainant applied for 5 BHP tube well connection under scheme of 2.5 acres land to 5 acres land of Ops and deposited requisite charges in the office of OP-2; that OP-2 issued demand notice no. 643 dt 28.01.2014 and directed complainant to deposit Rs 95,500/- as service connection charges, Rs 500/- as ACDV charges and Rs 120/- as chief electrical inspector fees and also directed to submit test report and complete other formalities as per demand notice; that complainant deposited Rs 120/- fees of chief electrical inspector on the challan and also prepared all other documents and after installation of motor, got the test report for the release of connection and after preparing all the documents as per demand notice alongwith demand draft no. 562075 dt 14.07.2014 drawn from SBOP, Sadiq for Rs 95,500/-, visited the office of OP-2, but clerk of OP-2 refused to accept the same; that complainant also requested Revenue Accountant (RA) of Ops to get deposit the requisite documents and amount from complainant,  but RA showed his inability to get deposit the amount and thereafter, complainant met OP-2 and again requested for getting deposit the amount and documents as per demand notice, but OP-2 refused to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and due to this act of the OPs, complainant has suffered great harassment and mental agony for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay compensation to the tune of Rs 50,000/-for causing harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and Rs 10,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                     Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 22.07.2014, 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 Ops have constituted various dispute settlement committees/forums to settle  dispute between the parties and complainant has not put his case before the settlement committee, therefore, complaint of complainant is liable to be dismissed and is not maintainable; that present complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. On merits, Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. It is asserted that in complaint titled as Safal Bharat Guru Parampara Vs State of Punjab and others before Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, question of depletion of ground water lever is under consideration and in said case, Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi has ordered to maintain Status Quo regarding release of new Tube well connections and as per stay order, no new tubewell connections are issued/released and this fact was duly informed to the complainant; that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. 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 C-12 and closed the same.

6                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Varjinder Kumar Vinayak, SDO, PSPCL, Sadiq as Ex.OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 and OP-3 and closed the evidence.

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

8                                       The Ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant applied for a Tubewell connection in March 2007 as complainant is an agriculturist and have agriculture land in village Machaki Kalan in district Faridkot. He contended that Ops issued a demand notice dated 28.01.2014 to the complainant and directed him to deposit Rs 95,500/- as Service Connection Charges, Rs 500/- as ACDV charges and Rs 120/- as Chief Electrical Inspector fee. He contended that complainant complied with the directions of the Ops and also completed all the other formalities as per demand notice including the Test Report after installation of motor for the release of the connection. He contended that even thereafter, Ops did not issue the Tubewell connection though complainant visited the office of Ops many times and the act and conduct of the Ops has caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complaint is required to be allowed and Ops are required to be directed to receive the Service Connection Charges and other documents as per demand notice and be also directed to release the Tubewell connection alongwith compensation and litigation expenses as mentioned in the complaint.

9                                       The Ld Counsel for Ops contended that Ops issued demand notice to the complainant for deposit of Service Connection Charges and for completion of other formalities but before completion of formalities by the complainant, a letter dt 25.07.2014 Ex OP-2 was received in the office of Ops intimating that the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi has ordered to maintain status quo with regard to release of Tuebwell connection as a question was raised regarding depletion of ground water level in Punjab. He contended that in view of the status quo order passed by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, OP is not in position to release Tubewell connection to complainant. He contended that order of the status quo was also intimated to the complainant but inspite of that, complainant filed this complaint, which is not maintainable in view of status quo order and as such, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10                                            The ld counsel for complainant contended that OP was required to intimate the complainant regarding status quo order in writing so that complainant would not have prepared the draft for Rs 95,500/- or to complete other formalities and this conduct of Ops has caused financial loss to the complainant as complainant could not earn interest on the amount of Rs 95,500/- and as such, complainant is entitled to compensation on this account.

11                                    The ld counsel for Ops contended that this argument of the complainant is beyond pleadings as complainant has filed this complaint only for directing the Ops to receive the documents and to receive the Service Connection Charges and to release the Tubewelll connection but complainant has nowhere alleged the payment of compensation on account of loss of interest on amount of Rs 95,500/- and as such, complainant is not entitled to any relief in the complaint in view of the status quo order passed by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi. He also contended that officials of the OP intimated to complainant about status quo order, when OP received the letter and if OP had received the order before issuance of demand notice, it would not have issued the demand notice and as such, complainant is not entitled to any relief in the complaint.

12                                      After going through the record of the case and the evidence and documents produced by the parties on the file, this Forum does not find any force in the contentions of the ld counsel for complainant. It is admitted fact in the complaint that complainant applied for Tubewell connection in March 2007 and it is also admitted fact that Ops issued demand notice to the complainant for deposit of Service Connection Charges and for completion of other formalities for release of Tubewell connection, but after the issuance of demand notice, an order of status quo was passed by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi and due to this reason, Ops did not receive the Service Connection Charges or other documents from the complainant. It is the contention of the Ops that once the order of status quo is passed, further proceedings shall not be initiated in the matter. The action of the Ops is legal in view of the status quo order passed by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi. Relief of payment of interest on Service Connection Charges cannot be granted to complainant as the complaint is totally silent about this relief because as per complaint, the complainant prayed for directing the Ops to receive the Service Connection Charges or other charges and to receive the Test Report and other documents from the complainant in pursuance of demand notice and then to release the Tubewell connection and to pay compensation for causing harassment and mental tension due to the act of the Ops and to pay litigation expenses. In view of status quo order passed by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, OP is legally right to maintain status quo and not to receive the Service Connection Charges or to complete other formalities under the demand notice. It is the     contention of the Ops that complainant was also informed  about the  status quo order when complainant went to the office of Ops for depositing the Service Connection Charges and for completing other formalities under the demand notice. In view of it, the complaint is not maintainable.

13                                  In the light of above discussion, complainant is not entitled to relief prayed in the complaint as the  same is not maintainable in view of status quo order passed by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi. Therefore, complaint is hereby dismissed, however, with no order as to costs in view of peculiar circumstances of the case. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 8.01.2015

  Member            Member                    President

 (P Singla)          (Parampal Kaur)      (A K Mehta)