Punjab

Sangrur

CC/542/2014

Raghbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ramit Pathak

04 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    542

                                                Instituted on:      12.09.2014

                                                Decided on:       04.02.2015

 

Raghbir Singh son of Shri Ram Chander R/o Village Banarasi, Near R/o Sarpanch Firangi Lal, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its M.D.

2.     Asstt. Executive Engineer (SDO), PSPCL, Operation Sub Division, Khanauri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant    :       Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For OPs.                   :       Shri Jatinder Verma, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Raghbir Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant applied for a motor connection for his land in the year 1993 i.e. on 15.3.1993 by depositing the requisite fee with the OPs.  Further case of the complainant is that thereafter in the year 2013 on 24.1.2013, the OPs demanded an amount of Rs.1,13,415/-  from the complainant and the complainant sought extension of time for deposit of the amount, which was lastly deposited on 13.6.2013 vide receipt number D91031/316 and the Ops assured that the connection would be released within 15-20 days. The case of the complainant is that the Ops also charged an amount of Rs.6673/- in advance on account of labour charges, but at the time of installation the OPs told that they have no labour for the installation of the connection, as such, the complainant arranged the labour for which he spent an amount of 9500/- for the purpose.  Further grievance of the complainant is that the connection was issued to the complainant after a period of 15 months of deposit of the amount, as such due to this delay the complainant had to water his fields with the use of generator set, which costs the complainant to the tune of Rs.90,000/-.  The complainant requested the Ops for refund of the above said amounts, but of no use. Thus,  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.6673/- on account of labour charges and further to enhance the load of the complainant at the rate which was initially raised in the year 2013 and further claimed compensation for mental tension and harassment.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant applied for the tube well motor connection in question. Further case of the OPs is that no bore and kotha was provided by the complainant, without which the connection cannot be installed and the complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrongs. That installation order number 193/66823 dated 16.6.2014 was issued and the same was duly implemented on 2.7.2014. Further case of the OPs is that the connection was installed by the labour of the OPs and the complainant has not spent any amount of Rs.9500/- as alleged.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of receipt, Ex.C-3 copy of letter, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 copies of site plan, Ex.C-7 copy of detail of material, Ex.C-8 copy of gate pass, Ex.C-9 copy of receipt, Ex.C-10 affidavit and Ex.C-11 copy of certificate and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.Op-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of letter, Ex.OP-3 receipt, Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5 copies of reports, Ex.OP-6 copy of site plan, Ex.OP-7 detail of material and Ex.OP-8 copy of gate pass and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons. 

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had applied for a motor tube well connection and the same has already been released to the complainant after deposit of the necessary charges.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that though he deposited the labour charges to the tune of Rs.6673/- with the Ops, but again the Ops asked the complainant at the time of releasing the tube well connection to arrange the labour, as such the complainant arranged the labour and spent an amount of Rs.9500/- and to prove this fact the complainant has drawn our attention towards the copy of receipt of Rs.9500/- Ex.C-9.  A bare perusal of the receipt Ex.C-9 nowhere reveals that on what date an amount of Rs.9500/- was paid by the complainant to one Shri Ramdia for labour charges on account of fitting of wires, poles etc. for release of the connection.  Whereas the stand of the OPs is that the connection has been released by them from their own labour. Ex.OP-1 is the sworn affidavit of Er. Suresh Kumar Garg, wherein he has mentioned that after providing the bore and kotha to the Ops, the connection was released immediately without any delay and payment of Rs.9500/- as labour charges by the complainant is also denied.  Ex.OP-2 is a copy of the letter which shows that the connection to the complainant was not released earlier due to non availability of kotha and bore.   Since the complainant himself did not construct the kotha and bore for release of the tube well connection, we are unable to hold that the OPs are at all deficient in rendering service by not releasing the tube well connection to the complainant.  As such, no deficiency in service whatsoever can be attributed towards the OPs.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence on record whether Shri Ramdia was the approved contractor of the Ops to whom he allegedly paid Rs.9500/- for getting released the tubewell connection in question.  Under these circumstances, we find no case made out of any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 4, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member