Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/190

Modan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

06 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        190

Date of Institution :  15.06.2017

Date of Decision :      6.10.2017

 

Modan Singh aged about 80 years s/o Banta Singh, r/o Village Wander Jatana, Tehsil Kotkapura, 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, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.                                 

   .........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.

 

 

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 etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to issue demand notice against application dt 15.04.1992 and release the tube well connection and for further directing them to pay Rs.80,000/- 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 of 5 BHP in his land situated at village Wander Jatana  on 15.04.1992 and deposited security with OP-2. It is submitted that OP-2 issued demand notice no204 dt 23.01.2014 vide which they demanded Rs.1,07,000/- as cost of line and Rs.880/-as additional security under Same Area Priority Category. Land in the name of complainant is less than 5 acres and he is entitled for connection as per commercial circular no.32/2013 under general category as he applied for tubewell connection on 15.04.1992 and as per commercial circular no.32/2013, the connection was to be released applied upto 1.01.1996, but the demand notice issued vide letter no.204 dt 23.01.2014 under sem area priority, whereas complainant is entitled for general category. On receiving the said demand notice, complainant gave representation to OP-2 for releasing connection to his as per commercial circular no.32/2013 and then, his application was sent to Additional S E, DS Division, PSPCL, Sri Muktsar Sahib, who approved to release connection to complainant under general category 2.5 acres to 5 acres of land as per commercial circular no.32/2013 subject to submission of affidavit of complainant duly attested by Executive Magistrate as per instructions of PSPCL. Complainant submitted the requisite affidavit on 14.03.2014 and completed all the formalities to get released the tubewell connection under general category upto 5 acres of land, but despite this, OPs did not release tubewell connection to him and on asking of complainant, they told that stay has been imposed by Green Tribunal and on vacating the stay, the tubewell connection would be released to him. It is further submitted that stay for releasing connections was vacated in year 2015 and Ops started giving tubewell connections and when complainant approached them with request to release tubewell connection to him, they assured to do the same and said that demand notice under general category 2.5 acres to 5 acres of land as per commercial circular no.32/2013, would be issued to him, but till date despite repeated requests OPs have not issued connection to him and now, they have flatly refused to issue tubewell connection to him, which 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 directions to Ops to release the  tubewell connection under general category and also prayed to pay Rs.80,000/- 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 23.06.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                        On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties appeared in the Forum through their counsel, but despite availing several opportunities, Ops did not file any reply and therefore, vide order dated 14.09.2017, defence of Ops struck off.

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 6 and closed the same.

6                                             As there is no rebuttal from OPs side, therefore, we have heard the learned counsel for complainant and have very carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on file.

7                                               From the careful perusal of record, it is observed that case of complainant is that he applied for 5 BHP tubewell connection in his land situated at village Wander Jatana  on 15.04.1992 and deposited security with OP-2. OP-2 issued demand notice vide letter no.204 dt 23.01.2014 vide which they demanded Rs.1,07,000/- as cost of line and Rs.880/-as additional security under Same Area Priority Category. Grievance of complainant is that the land in his name is less than 5 acres and he is entitled for connection as per commercial circular no.32/2013 under general category as he applied for tubewell connection on 15.04.1992 and as per circular the connection was to be released applied  up to 1.01.1996. But the demand notice issued vide letter no.204 dt 23.01.2014 under sem area priority, whereas complainant is entitled for general category. On receiving the said demand notice, complainant gave representation to OP-2 for releasing connection to his as per commercial circular no.32/2013 and his application was approved by Additional S E , DS Division, PSPCL, Sri Muktsar Sahib, who gave approval to release connection to complainant under general category 2.5 acres to 5 acres of land as per commercial circular no.32/2013 subject to submission of affidavit of complainant duly attested by Executive Magistrate as per instructions of PSPCL. Complainant submitted the requisite affidavit on 14.03.2014 and completed all the formalities, but despite this, OPs did not release tubewell connection to him  on the pretext that stay has been imposed by Green Tribunal and on vacating the stay, the tubewell connection would be released to him. Stay for releasing connections was vacated in year 2015 and Ops started giving tubewell connections and when complainant requested to release tubewell connection to him, they assured to do the same and said that demand notice under general category 2.5 acres to 5 acres of land as per commercial circular no.32/2013, would be issued to him, but despite repeated requests OPs have not issued connection to him and now, they have flatly refused to issue tubewell connection to him

8                                    As per policy for releasing the tubewell connection in year 2014-2015 issued vide commercial circular no.32/13 dated 11.06.2013, the cut off date for issuing the demand notice under priority category  of Sem Area was upto date, but cut off date for issuing tubewell connection under general category for 2.5 to 5 acres of land was 1.01.1996. As complainant applied for tubewell connection on 15.04.1992 and demand notice was to be issued under general category and service connection charges were also required to be got deposited from him under general category and not under any priority category. Even after receiving the demand notice dt 23.01.2014 on the application of complainant after verifying the record, Additional S E DS Division, Sri Muktsar Sahib approved to release connection to complainant under general category. The Ops did not issue the demand notice as per general category and not released the connection to complainant on the pretext that there is a stay granted by Hon’ble Green Tribunal, New Delhi for not releasing the tubewell connection and now, as the stay has been vacated by Green Tribunal, New Delhi, the Ops have not issued the demand notice to complainant as per general category and not released the tubewell connection which is quite illegal and is against the rules and regulations of OPs. As the complainant has applied for issuance of tubewell connection under general category and now in general category, his turn has come and he is entitled to get connection under general category and is not liable to pay service connection charges as per Sem Area Priority category to the OPs.

9                               From the above discussion and in the light of evidence placed on record, present complaint is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to issue demand notice to complainant for releasing tubewell connection under general category and to get deposit the charges under general category from the complainant and they are further directed to release tubewell connection to complainant on deposition of requisite charges by him. 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 : 6.10.2017

                                                 Member                  President                                                                     (P Singla)               (Ajit Aggarwal)

 

 

 

 

 

cc-190/17

Modan Singh Vs PSPCL

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh B B Khurana, Ld Counsel for OPs.

                Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 6.10.2017

                                                 Member                  President