DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 516 of 10-11-2010

Decided on : 31-03-2011

Jagpal Singh aged about 35 years, S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, R/o Village Bhokhra, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Urban, Sub Division, Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda, through Asstt. Executive Engineer

.... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Harpal Singh, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Parveen Sharma, counsel for the opposite paries.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant is an agriculturist and he obtained a tubewell connection from the opposite parties vide connection bearing A/c No. AP-08/0451 and has been using 7.5 BHP motor. Some defect had occurred in the bore of his tubewell, so he approached opposite party No. 2 and requested him for the shifting of his tubewell connection. On the application of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 assured him that he would get the estimate prepared regarding the amount to be spent for shifting of connection to the proposed site and demand notice would be issued to the complainant for depositing the amount. Despite repeated requests of the complainant, the opposite parties have not issued the demand notice to the complainant although the complainant has shown his willingness to deposit the requisite amount. The aforesaid tubewell connection of the complainant was disconnected by the opposite parties after receiving the application for shifting of connection from the complainant and even the transformer, wires and other implements were also removed from the site which were installed at the expenses of the complainant. The opposite parties have issued two bills to the complainant which were paid by him although he never used the said connection. The complainant got issued legal notice which was not replied by them. The opposite parties, few days back, have refused to shift the connection of the complainant without any reasonable cause and excuse. Hence, this complaint seeking directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to release the tubewell connection to the complainant after getting deposited the requisite amount and pay him compensation and cost.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and admitted that the complainant has been subscriber of the tubewell connection bearing A/c No. AP-08/0451 but it has been denied that complainant ever reported to them any defect in the bore of his tubewell or he ever approached the opposite parties for shifting of his aforesaid tubewell connection. Thus, there was no question of preparing any estimate by the opposite parties. It has been pleaded that complainant never deposited any fee with the opposite parties for shifting of the connection in question to any other place. The aforesaid connection is still in existence and has not been disconnected by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have admitted that legal notice was received by them. After receiving the legal notice from the complainant, the opposite parties have been searching their records to trace any such application for shifting of the connection because there was no mention of any date or month or year of filing of the application by the complainant in the notice or even in the complaint. No such application could be traced in the records of the opposite parties because it was never filed by the complainant.

3. Parties have led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant got a tubewell connection bearing A/c No. AP-08/0451and has been using 7.5 B.H.P. motor. Some defects appeared in bore of tubewell of the complainant due to which he was unable to irrigate his land through the above said tubewell. The complainant approached opposite party No. 2 with the request that the aforesaid tubewell connection may be shifted from the said place to some other place in the same fields. On the application of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that estimate would be got prepared regarding amount to be spent on shifting of the connection in question to the proposed site and the complainant would have to deposit the requisite amount as per notice issued by the opposite parties. Accordingly, the complainant applied for the shifting of connection to some other place in his property comprising in the same khasra number and the officials of the opposite parties also prepared the rough estimate for the same which was sent by Asstt. Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Goniana to Senior Executive officer, Operation Division, Bhagta Bhaika vide memo No. 3761 dated 28-09-2005 alongwith report regarding the estimate and in the said report, it has been clearly stated that the complainant in his application requested for shifting of connection. It has also been stated in the said report that the connection would be shifted after sanctioning of estimate and completion of documentary formalities. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that till date the opposite parties have not issued any demand notice to the complainant although he is willing to deposit the requisite amount with the opposite parties for shifting of tubewell connection. After receiving the application, the above said tubewell connection was disconnected by the opposite parties for shifting the connection and even the transformer, wires and other implements were also removed from the site which were installed at the expenses of the complainant. The opposite parties have neither installed the said equipment nor released the connection to the complainant and on the contrary, the opposite parties have issued two bills to the complainant which were paid by him although he had never used the said connection after filing the application for shifting of connection in question. The complainant had repeatedly requested the opposite parties to issue the requisite demand notice and to get the requisite amount deposited from him and to shift the tubewell connection but all in vain. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant is having two tubwell connections bearing A/c Nos. 451 and 366. The connection bearing A/c No. 366 has already been shifted but the other connection bearing A/c No. 451 has not been shifted yet. The connection bearing A/c No. 451 is altogether different from connection bearing A/c No. 366.

6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand submitted that the complainant has neither reported any defect in the bore of the tubewell nor he has approached the opposite parties for shifting of his aforesaid tubewell connection, hence there was no question of preparing the estimate by the opposite parties. Moreover, the complainant has not deposited any fee with the opposite parties for shifting of connection in question to any other place. The said connection is still in existence and has not been disconnected by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have received the legal notice sent by the complainant and after receiving the same, they have been searching their record to trace any such application for shifting the connection because there was no mention of any date/month/year for filing of application by the complainant in the notice or even in the complaint. No such application could be traced in the record of the opposite parties because it was never filed by the complainant.

7. Sh. Jasbir Singh, A.E.E. of the opposite parties in his affidavit Ex. R-1 has deposed :-

   “....The complainant applied for shifting of connection bearing A/c No. 366 and the application was also received by the opposite parties regarding the connection No. 366 and the estimate etc., was also prepared regarding connection bearing A/c No. 366 but due to some inadvertance the said estimate was also prepared regarding the another account of the complainant bearing A/c No. 451. However, due to some clerical mistake, the account number was mentioned on the said file as A/c No. 456 and the said estimate was placed in file pertaining to A/c No. 456 which is not belonging to the complainant. The complainant has filed the above said complaint regarding A/c No. 451 and placed the documents on file regarding A/c No. 456 although A/c No. 456 does not stand in the name of the complainant. Record regarding A/c No. 0451 was sent to Division Bhagta Bhaika and as such the opposite parties could not supply the documents required to be produced by the complainant and now after enquiry, it has revealed that the connection of the complainant is bearing A/c No. 366.”

8. A copy of Bill Ledger Ex. C-2 shows that there were two connections in the name of the complainant i.e. connection bearing A/c No. 366 and A/c No. 451 and he has been paying the bills against the said connections regularly. The opposite parties have themselves admitted in their above said affidavit that due to some clerical mistake, the estimate was placed on the file of A/c No. 456 which does not belong to the complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as they have failed to shift the connection in question of the complainant despite his repeated requests and even did not issue him the notice for deposit of the amount.

9. The opposite parties have prepared and produced estimate amounting to Rs. 9127/- and submitted during arguments that they are ready to shift the connection of the complainant if he pays the estimated amount. Hence, this complaint is accepted against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 500/-. The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh Pass Book against connection bearing A/c No. 451 and to issue estimate which has been placed on file, by correcting the A/c Number as 451, within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant would deposit the estimated amount in the next 10 days from the date of receipt of notice and thereafter the opposite parties would shift the connection in question of the complainant at the proposed site, within next 25 days from the date of receipt of amount from the complainant. The compliance regarding cost be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

   A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced

31-03-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul) Member