DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 534/2016
Date of Institution : 19.05.2016
Date of Decision : 25.07.2017
Sarabjit Singh son of Gulzar Singh resident of Sekha (Harbans Pura Kothe), Tehsil and District Barnala. …Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., H.O., The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.
2. Addl. Superintending Engineer, Operations Division, City Barnala.
3. The Assistant Engineer, Operations, PSPCL, Sub Division, Sanghera.
4. S.D.O. PSPCL, Sub Division, Sanghera.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. AS Bahia counsel for the complainant.
Sh. SK Kotia counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
3. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Sarabjit Singh son of Gulzar Singh has filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others opposite parties under Consumer Protection Act (In short the Act).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant moved an application for the release of the electric motor connection for 10 BHP for irrigation purpose in the area of Sekha and has deposited a sum of Rs. 240/- vide receipt No. 83 dated 14.3.1990 Book No. 027312. However, the complainant did not receive any demand notice for the release of the said electric motor connection despite the several requests made by him. It is further pleaded that ultimately he moved an application dated 25.4.2016 to the opposite party No. 4 stating that he has not received any demand notice despite the deposit of Rs. 240/- and requested that the demand notice may be issued in his favour.
3. The complainant has alleged that after thorough inquiry it came to his notice that the said connection has been released illegally to some other person. Even, a news in this regard in Daily Ajit Jalandhar and Sach Kahun newspapers has been published, on the basis of which the report was called by the Addl. S.E. City Division, Barnala. The complainant further alleged that he is running pillar to post since 14.3.1990 but the department has not released the electric connection and it has caused huge financial loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- per year to the complainant and total loss comes to Rs. 15,00,000/-, as the present connection was released to some other person in the year 2001. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to release the above said electric motor connection and to get deposit the demand amount of Rs. 24,000/-.
2) To pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.
3) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
4) Any other relief which this Forum deems fit.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed a joint written statement taking legal objections interalia on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation, complainant has not come this Forum with clean hands, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.
5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had deposited the security vide receipt No. 83 Book No. 027312 dated 14.3.1990 for taking the electric motor connection. However, on checking the service register it was found that the Concerned Clerk inadvertently mentioned by clerical mistake as Sarabjit Singh son of Sudagar Singh instead of Sarabjit Singh son of Gulzar Singh, as such on dated 30.3.2001 the demand notice had been got issued in the name of Sarabjit Singh son of Sudagar Singh instead of Sarabjit Singh son of Gulzar Singh. It is further submitted that it was duly within the knowledge of the complainant but the complainant did not raise any objection against the demand notice and no application was filed for the correction of the demand notice. It is further submitted that the Concerned Clerk Mohinder Pal had duly given in writing that the connection has neither been released in the name of Sarabjit Singh son of Sudagar Singh nor in the name of Sarabjit Singh son of Gulzar Singh.
6. It is also submitted that the brother of the complainant Baljit Singh also applied for connection alongwith the complainant and the connection had been released in the name of Baljit Singh which is within the knowledge of the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant moved an application dated 25.4.2016 which is malafide and just for creating cause of action. The opposite parties have specifically denied that the connection has been released to some other person or the demand notice has not been issued to the complainant. They have also denied the other allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant have tendered into evidence copy of receipt No. 83 dated 14.3.1990 Ex.C-1, copy of application dated 25.4.2016 Ex.C-2, newspaper clippings Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copy of complaint dated 6.5.2016 Ex.C-5, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-6, affidavit of Balwinder Singh Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Dharampal SDO Ex.OP-1.2.3.4/1, copy of letter No. 1595 dated 27.7.2016 Ex.OP-1.2.3.4/2, copy of letter No. 4579 dated 6.5.2016 Ex.OP-1.2.3.4/3, copy of service register Ex.OP-1.2.3.4/6 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
10. The only objection raised by the opposite parties is that the present complaint is not filed within the period of limitation, as the complainant remained mum for the period of 25 years. However, this contention is untenable.
11. It is not the case of the opposite parties that after deposit of security by the complainant on 14.3.1990, they have ever issued any demand notice or issued any letter for completion of formalities. Moreover, no letter or document has been placed on record by the opposite parties to indicate that the application for issuance of the electric motor connection by the complainant has been rejected and intimation was sent to the complainant. When the opposite parties have not repudiated the claim of the complainant, then the cause of action will continue to run.
12. Facing this situation the learned counsel for the opposite parties have contended that in the year 2001 inadvertently the opposite parties issued the demand notice in the name of Sarabjit Singh son of Sudagar Singh (another person) instead of complainant but till today no electric motor connection was released in favour of said person or against the security deposited by the complainant. It is also relevant to refer here the newspaper clippings Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 wherein it is mentioned that the complainant has made allegations against the officers of the opposite parties for issuing of the connection to some other person against his security. There is also a letter bearing No. 4579 dated 6.5.2016 from Additional Superintending Engineer to Er. Dharampal, AE, Sanghera regarding the complaint of the complainant wherein it is specifically mentioned that the electric connection was issued 14/15 years back to some other person and the Additional S.E has asked for the complete report after making the investigation within a week. However, it is very strange that opposite parties have not placed on record any such report to show whether the motor electric connection was issued to third person against the security of the complainant or not.
13. Perusal of the evidence clearly shows that the opposite parties have admitted their inadvertence in not issuing the demand notice to the complainant. The opposite parties have not taken any other stand for refusing the electric connection to the complainant except the ground of limitation which is already held untenable in the preceding paras.
14. As a result of the above discussion this Forum is of the view that there is merit in the present complaint and same is accepted. The opposite parties are directed to issue the demand notice to the complainant and after completion of formalities release the electric motor connection to the complainant at the earliest, as per rules. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 1,100/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
25th Day of July 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
