DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 498 of 29-10-2010

Decided on : 13-04-2011

Major Singh aged about 55 years S/o Gurdial Singh R/o Village Phodipura District Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman

2. XEN/Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Division Bhagta Bhai ka.

3. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Bhagta Bhai Ka.

    

.... 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. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. R.D. Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.

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 applied for tubewell connection with the opposite party No. 3 for irrigation of his agricultural land on 07-02-1990 under General Category and also completed all the requisite formalities for the same as required by the opposite parties. The opposite parties on 01-02-2002 issued a demand notice in the name of complainant requiring him to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,480/- and he deposited the said amount vide receipt No. 506 dated 01-02-2002. The complainant has been visiting the office of the opposite parties from time to time and requesting them to release the connection, but they have been putting the matter off on one pretext or the other. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties are not releasing the connections as per seniority and providing the same as per their sweet will with vested interest. The complainant had applied for the connection in the year 1990 and deposited the requisite amount with the opposite parties, but till date connection has not been released to him although a period of twenty years has already been lapsed since the date of application of the complainant for connection and more than 8 years since the date of issuance of demand notice and deposit of Rs. 9,480/- on dated 01-02-2002. Hence, this complaint.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and pleaded that complainant had applied for tubewell connection with the opposite parties in the year 1990 under General category and demand notice was issued to him and accordingly, he complied with the same. The name of the complainant falls at Sr. No. 257 in the seniority list and connection has been released upto Sr. No. 181 and hence the connection would be released to the complainant on his turn as per seniority list. It has been specifically denied that opposite parties have ever released any connection to any person as per their sweet wishes by breaking the seniority.

3. Parties have led their 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 had applied for tubewell connection to irrigate his agricultural land on 07-02-1990. The opposite parties issued demand notice and the complainant complied with all the formalities and also paid the demanded amount of Rs. 9,480/- vide Ex. C-4, but the connection has not yet been released to the complainant. The opposite parties are releasing the connections to the influential persons by distorting the seniority list. For this, he referred photocopy of seniority list Ex. C-2. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the list prepared by the opposite parties is not according to the serial numbers rather some persons have been shown on the top in the seniority list whereas they have deposited the same much later than others. There is great bungling on the part of the opposite parties as they used to get the monetary benefit from the different persons who are interested to get the connections. Even FIR has already been registered against the official of the opposite parties. He submitted that as per sales regulation when the demand notice was issued, the opposite parties were duty bound to release the tubewell connection within 2 months. For this, he placed reliance on 2007(2) CPC page 307 National Commission, 2008(3) CPC page 258 National Commission and 2008(2) CPC page 382 National Commission. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that as per commercial circular No. 63/2008 the connections should have been released before 31-03-2009 against the applications registered upto 31-12-1990, positively by superseding all the applications under all the categories on priority basis.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the name of the complainant falls at Sr. 257 in the seniority list and connection has been released upto Sr. No. 181 and hence the connection would be released to the complainant on his turn as per seniority list. For this, he cited 2005(2) CPC page 414 case titled Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd., Vs. Zora Singh and Others. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that connection would be released to the complainant as per rules and regulations of the Board and for this, he referred commercial circulars No. 59/08, 33/2009 , 11/2010 and 9/2011.

7. It is the admitted fact of the parties that complainant applied for for tubewell connection with the opposite party No. 3 for irrigation of his agricultural land on 07-02-1990 under General Category and also completed all the requisite formalities for the same as required by the opposite parties. The opposite parties issued a demand notice in the name of complainant requiring him to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,480/- and he deposited the said amount vide receipt No. 506 dated 01-02-2002 as detailed in Ex C-4. The connection has not yet been released to the complainant.

8. The plea of the opposite parties is that the connection would be released to the complainant as per seniority list and his number in the seniority list figures at No. 257 whereas the connections have been released upto seniority No. 181. The version of the complainant is that the opposite parties are releasing the connections to the persons as per their sweet will by breaking seniority. A perusal of seniority list Ex. C-2 reveals that against some of the serial numbers remarks have been given by the opposite parties i.e. “ as per ECR connection has been released after breaking seniority list.”. Against some of the serial numbers, it has been mentioned “connection has been released as per list of 31-03-88.” The opposite parties have failed to satisfy this Forum that for what purpose/reason the seniority has been broken and the connections have been released to the persons who have applied after the complainant and the criteria adopted by them for releasing the connections to the consumers. The contention of the opposite parties that connection would be released to the complainant as per rules and regulations and subsequent circulars is not tenable as the commercial circulars are to operate prospectively and not retrospectively. Complainant has applied for tubewell connection on 07-02-1990 and deposited the amount of Rs. 9,480/- on 01.02.2002 for release of tube well connection. His seniority for release of connection should be as per scheme which was available when he had applied for and when he has deposited the amount. By issuing one sided Commercial Circular, opposite parties cannot act to the detriment of the complainant.

9. Sales Regulation No. 24 – Release of electric connections reads as under :-

   “24. Time Limit for Grant of Connection

   After the compliance of demand notice, the connection to various categories of prospective consumers should, as far as possible, be given within the time schedule specified below :-

   .....24.2 Agricultural Pumping Supply : 2 Months”

   Commercial Circular No. 55/2008 of the opposite parties is reproduced hereunder :-

   “....Sub : Overriding priority for release of AP General Category Connections registered upto 31-03-90.

   As per existing instructions, the sub-division wise seniority for release of new AP tubewell connections under General Category is maintained on the basis of date of registration of the application irrespective of the date on which the test report has been submitted by the applicant.

   As per details received from field offices, about 13.141 No. test reports, received against AP tubewell applications registered upto 31-03-90 under General Category, are pending for the release of connections and it may take long time to clear these pending application if the roaster as the tubewell policy is followed.

   In order to clear the backing of the pending test reports received against application registered upto 31-03-1990 under general category, the matter has been considered and it has been decided as under :-'

   “For release of AP tubewell connections under general category, the test reports received against applications registered upto 31-03-90 under General Category shall be given overriding priority for release of their tubewell connections over all other categories except AP Tubewell connections to be released under chairman's discretionary quota. For allowing overriding priority, roster shall not be followed in their case. This work shall be completed by 31-03-09 positively”

   The field officers are requested to ensure strict compliance of above instructions.”

10. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied on the case law 2005(2) CPC page 414 case titled Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd., Vs. Zora Singh and Others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held :-

    “ “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1)(g) and 23 – Indian Electricity Act, 1910 – Electricity Act, 1948 – Section 49 and 70 (i) – Electricity supply – Complainant one of several applicants applied for electric connection for agricultural use making necessary payments and fulfilling all the formalities – Connection was denied taking the plea by Board that only in the order of seniority in view of Regulation 24 of the Sales Manual connection could be given – Board did not commit any deficiency in service in view of Regulation 24 – Both the District Forum and State Commission directed Board to provide connection within the specified period with a compensation – National Commission directed payment of 12% P.A.. on the amount deposited by applicants with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. There is no force in the appeal filed by Board which had unjustly enriched itself with the deposited amount of the applicants and in return rendering no service – However, rate of interest is reduced to 9% and quantum of compensation to Rs. 5,000/- Board comes in the definition of the State envisaged in Article 12 and 14 of the Constitution. As such it should fulfill the reasonableness of its acts and responsibilities towards the applicant consumer – Award of compensation with interest justified – Appeals dismissed.”

    With utmost regard and humility to the aforesaid authority, it is distinguishable on facts because in the case in hand, proper seniority was not maintained by the opposite parties.

11. A perusal of seniority list shows that some connections have already been released on 31-03-1988 and some connections have been shifted to some other categories or areas and some connections have been found illegally connected as per ECR. All these connections should be deleted from the seniority list. The opposite parties are directed to update seniority list and put it on their notice board within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further this seniority list be refreshed annually and displayed on the 'Notice Board' of District headquarters of PSPCL.

12. Hence, as discussed above, the commercial circulars are to operate prospectively and not retrospectively. The complainant has not been released the connection even after lapse of about 20 years. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 1460 of 2007 decided on 30-05-2009 in the case titled Punjab State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Makhan Singh S/o Ghuman Singh R/o Village Bhodipura, District Bathinda and First Appeal No. 1459 of 2007 decided on 20-05-2009 in the case titled Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Gurmail Singh S/o Dalip Singh R/o Village Aklia Jalal, District Bathinda.

13. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation and opposite parties are directed to release the connection to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

    The compliance regarding cost and compensation 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 :

13-04-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member