DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

CC No. 50 of 18-2-2020

Decided on :16-03-2023

Veer Singh aged about 67 years S/o Sh. Kartar Singh, R/o Vill. Gehri Buttar, Tehsil & district Bathinda.

​........Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited., The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/ Managing Director.

2. Asstt. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sangat, Distt. Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:-

Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present:-

For the complainant : Sh. A.S Sohi, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate.

ORDER

Shivdev Singh, Member

1. The complainant Veer Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant that he is doing the cultivation of Horticulture in one Hectare of land through Drip/Mini Sprinkler system which has been got installed by the complainant from i.e. Guru Nanak Farm Solutions, Bhai Daya Singh Nagar, Barewal Road, Ludhiana which is an approved firm and the said Drip/Mini Sprinkler system is functioning accurately as per the report of Soil Conservation Officer, Bathinda. The Soil Conservation Officer, Bathinda has recommended PSPCL to provide 10 BHP connection to the complainant on priority basis for the aforesaid Drip System/ Mini Sprinkler for the Horticulture purposes.

3. It is alleged that the complainant has already applied for the said connection with PSPCL by depositing the requisite fee of Rs.1600.00 on 17.7.2018 and also deposited Rs.85,000/- with the opposite parties on 18.8.2017 for the release of the said connection but the opposite parties have failed to provide the said connection to the complainant till date. As per recommendation of the Soil Conservation Officer, Bathinda, the said connection is to be provided to complainant on priority basis but opposite parties have failed to release the connection to complainant till date. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the opposite parties on 4-7-2019 in this regard but to no effet. The opposite parties have given a false and vague reply dated 7.8.2019 and ultimately refused to accede to the lawful claim of the complainant. Due to the non release of the said connection, the complainant is suffering from grave mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and loss as the complainant is unable to properly utilize the aforesaid Drip system/Mini Sprinkler system for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.

4. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to provide the aforesaid 10 BHP connection to the complainant on priority basis and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.

5. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form; the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file this complaint and that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has not disclosed the material facts.

6. It has been pleaded that the complainant had applied for 7.5 BHP on priority basis for the Drip System/Mini Sprinkler for the Horticulture purposes on 17.07.2018. As per letter no. 20/2018, memo no. 177/181/SSM-414/AP Policy/L dated 13.04.2018. due to large pendency of demand notices already issued, no new (fresh) demand notices against General Category or any Priority Category AP applicants shall be issued till further orders except the applications pending, till cut-off date i.e. 13,04.1218. As per the above said memo, the complainant had applied after 3 months of the cut-off date. So no demand notice or supply with respect to Drip System/Mini Sprinkler for Horticulture purpose could be issued.

7. It has also been pleaded that the complainant has not submitted the jamabandi of requisite land required under instruction under 13.4b of ESIM disclosed. As per instruction the land required for priority of release of T/well connection of minimum of 01 hectare of vegetables crops/Non Horticultutre Crops and 02 hectare of fruit crops. As per sketch issued by Department of soil and water conservation officer, Bathinda, the complainant has 10x10 (Meter) land spacing for vegetable crops. Moreover, the Jamabandi of land submitted while applying the tube well connection is different from Jamabandi of land on which report of Soil Conservative officer, Batinda was sought.

8. On merits, the opposite parties have denied all the averments of the complainant. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 13.2.2020 (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11).

10. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Iqbal Singh dated 17.12.2020 (Ex.OP-1/1) and other documents (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/6).

11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

12. To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant (Ex. C-1), copy of application (Ex. C-2), copy of certificate issued by Office of Divisional Land Welfare Officer, Bathinda (Ex. C-3), bill of Guru Nanak Farm Solutions (Ex. C-4), report of Department of Soil & Water Conservation, Punjab (Ex. C-5), copy of report issued by Land Welfare Officer (Ex C-6), receipt of fee (Ex. C-7), receipt issued by Guru Nanak Farm Solutions (Ex. C-8) and copy of legal notice (Ex. C-9).

13. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties has placed on record affidavit of Iqbal Singh (Ex. OP-1/1), application submitted by complainant (Ex. OP-1/2), recommendation of Divisional Land Welfare Officer, Bathinda (Ex. OP-1/6), copy of certificate (Ex. OP-1/5), copy of notification/letter (Ex. OP-1/3) and Jamabandi (Ex. OP-1/9.

14. The complainant has applied for 10 BHP connection with the opposite parties and deposited application fee of Rs. 1600/- on 17-7-2018 vide Ex. C-7 and in addition to that, the complainant had also paid Rs. 85,000/- to Guru Nanak Farm Solutions vide Ex. C-8. However, despite a lapse of considerable time, the connection was not released in favour of the complainant.

15. The counsel for the opposite parties has argued that complainant had applied for 7.5 BHP connection on priority basis for Drip System/Mini Sprinkler for horticulure purposes on 17-7-2018 and the said connection could not be issued in favour of the complainant in view of letter (Ex. OP-1/3) issued on 13-4-2018. As per the said letter dated 13-4-2018, due to large pendency of demand notices already issued, no new/fresh demand notices against general category or any priority category AP applicants shall be issued till further order except the applications pending till cut-off date i.e. 13-4-2018. Counsel for the opposite parties has further argued that the complainant was eligible for connection on priority basis only in case he is having one hectare of vegetable crops/non horticulure crops and 2 hectare of fruit crops whereas sketch Ex. C-5 issued by Department of Soil & Water Conservation, Punjab, shows that complainant has 10x10 (meter) land spacing for vegetable crops and Jamabandi of land submitted by complainant is different from the Jamabandi of land on which report was sought from Dejpartment of Soil & Water Conservation, Punjab.

16. We have gone through the file.

17. The plea of the opposite parties to this effect that as per letter dated 13-4-2018 (OP-1/3), the connections applied upto 13-4-2018 could be issued only is not acceptable as the opposite parties had received the application (Ex. OP-1/2) for release of connection on 17-4-2018 and application fee of Rs. 1600/- vide Ex. C-7 and if the opposite parties were already aware about the letter dated 13-4-2018, in that case, no reason has been explained by the counsel for the opposite parties as to why the opposite parties received the application fee of Rs. 1600/- vide Ex. C-7 and application for connection Ex. OP-1/2 from the complainant. As such, after having accepted fee and application for release of connection, the opposite parties cannot deny release of connection to the complainant on priority basis.

18. As far as question of land holding of the complainant is concerned, the said plea has been taken by the opposite parties afterwards just to find excuses to deny release of connection in favour of the complainant as the entire record was submitted with the Department certified by Divisional Land Welfare Officer, Bathinda vide Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-6. As such, failure on the part of the opposite parties to release the connection in favour of the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service.

19. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to release priority connection of 7.5 BHP to complainant, as admitted by opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.

20. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

21. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced :

    16-03-2023

    ( Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member