Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/136

Veerpal kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Goyal

26 Apr 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

                                                    C. C. No :               136 of 2020

Date of Institution :      11.09.2020

Date of Decision :         26.04.2023

Veerpal Kaur aged about 50 years, wife of  Surjit Singh resident of Village Brahman Wala, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.

           ...Complainant

Versus

1. Chairman cum Managing Director, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Patiala.
2. Director/Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Patiala.
3. Chief Engineer, Division West Zone, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Bathinda.
4. Sub Chief Engineer/ Division Area Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Faridkot.
5. Additional Chief Engineer, Sub Division, PSPCL, Kotkapura.
6. Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Sub Division, PSPCL, Kotkapura.
7. Shakti Kumar, Additional Assistant Engineer cum HDM,  Sub Division, PSPCL, Kotkapura.
8. Ankit Kumar U.D.C. (Consumer Clerk), Sub Urban Sub Division, PSPCL, Kotkapura.                  

    .......OPs

cc no. - 136 of 2020

      

Complaint under Section 35 of the

                            Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Quorum:    Smt Priti Malhotra, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present: Sh Dinesh Goyal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Mohan Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(Priti Malhotra, President)

ORDER

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/OPs for not releasing tubewell connection under Chairman Priority Quota and for seeking directions to OPs to release the tube well connection and for further directing them to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a poor farmer and owns 5 acres of land. It is submitted that in year 2007, OPs launched a scheme for releasing turbewell connections to small farmers having 5 acres of land.

cc no. - 136 of 2020

Complainant applied for tubewell connection, but after a long waiting in March, 2019, OP-6 issued demand notice to complainant, but as the financial condition of her family was not good enough, so, she could not deposit the amount mentioned in demand notice. And in May, 2019, when complainant approached OPs for depositing the amount as per demand notice, she deposited Rs.4000/-as fees to one Lovepreet Singh, Clerk sitting beside the office of SDO. Complainant has made several allegations of bribery on several employees of OPs in respect of the fact that OPs harassed her by taking bribes, but did not release her any tubewell connection and ultimately S.D.O. refused to grant tubewell connection saying her demand notice has been expired. Complainant has further alleged that in order to get tubewell connection, she was forced to give bribe to several employees of OPs, but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and this act and conduct of OPs has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to release the  tubewell connection and also prayed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

cc no. - 136 of 2020

3                                 Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 15.09.2020, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                              On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is admitted that before releasing the connection, demand notice dated was issued for compliance of rules and regulations of PSPCL, but complainant did not comply with the demand notice within time. Complainant moved an application for extension of time and deposited Rs.4500/-for this purpose and time period for fulfilling the conditions of demand notice was extended upto 31.07.2019, but complainant again failed to make compliance of demand notice. Thereafter, complainant and her husband persistently requested and pleaded to extend the period for depositing the amount on ground of their poor financial condition and due to ill health of her husband and considering their request sympathetically letter dated 15.06.2020 was written by OP-6 to OP-5 for extending the period for demand notice, but vide memo no. 3529

cc no. - 136 of 2020

dated 22.06.2020, it was rejected on the ground that demand notice has already been extended uptil 31.07.2019. it is further averred that there is no privity of contract between complainant and OPs as they have not taken any fees for releasing tubewell connection to her. further averred that no cause of action arises against OPs as complainant wants to take undue advantage for her own fault. There is no deficiency in service on their part. On merits, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that  vide memo dated 28.01.2014 demand notice for Rs.92,751/-was issued to complainant for granting her tubewell connection under Chairman Quota and was directed to deposit requisite fees within three months. Further brought before the Commission that complainant did not comply with demand notice and then, revised demand notice  vide memo dated 19.02.2016 was issued but this time also, complainant failed to deposit requisite fees and after that on requests of complainant period for depositing the amount was further extended to 31.07.2019, but again complainant did not pay requisite fees for this purpose. Complainant herself did not deposit requisite amount and now, she has concocted false stories in respect of allegations regarding seeking bribe by employees of

cc no. - 136 of 2020

OPs. Allegations levelled by complainant are false as there is no deficiency in service on their part. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-10 and closed the same.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Chunish Jain, Assistant Executive Engineer, City, Sub Division, PSPCL, Faridkot as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-15 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                                        We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

8                                                From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case

cc no. - 136 of 2020

of complainant is that she was sanctioned electrical tubewell connection and vide Demand notice Ex OP-3 issued in January, 2014, she was asked to deposit Rs.92,751/-for getting released the said connection. She did not deposit the requisite fee because of her financial grounds and on her request, revised demand notice dated 19.02.2016 was issued but this time again, she did not comply with the conditions of demand notice and thereafter, on her requests time for depositing the requisite fees was extended upto 31.07.2019, but again she could not deposit charges for obtaining tubewell connections. Now, when she has failed to deposit the  amount of demand notice after getting extended the validity period  of demand notice, she has starting levelling false allegations against employees of OPs. Complainant has nothing to say to contradict the version of OPs that on her requests, period for depositing the requisite amount was extended by OPs by 31.07.2019 and in order to gain undue advantage, now she has filed present complaint.

9                                      OPs have placed on record sufficient and cogent evidence to prove their version and all documents placed on

 

cc no. - 136 of 2020

record by OPs are authentic and are beyond any doubt. Allegations levelled by complainant have no legs to stand upon.

10                             In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there seems to be no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 26.04.2023

 

         (Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur) (Priti Malhotra)

          Member                             Member              President