Kartar Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to immediately release the temporary tubewell connection of the complainant of 5 BHP and to pay Rs.80000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and loss of paddy crop and to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is an agriculturist having agricultural land. Previously in the year of 2004 and 2005 the complainant got temporary tubewell connection of 5 BHP from the PSEB. Now he again applied for temporary tubewell connection of 5 BHP by depositing Rs.100/- vide receipt No. 39/87221 dated 7/6/2006 as such he is the consumer of the PSEB. Thereafter he visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 so many times to get released his temporary tubewell connection in his land which is just 40 meter away from the common pole but uptill now the connection of the complainant has not been released. The complainant also met with the concerned JE to get release his connection but JE Amrik Singh demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5000/- from the complainant for releasing the temporary tubewell connection. The complainant refused to fulfill the demand of Rs.5000/- of Amrik Singh JE so he made a false report and the connection of the complainant was not released. The complainant has requested the opposite parties so many times to release his temporary tubewell connection but to no effect which is clear cut deficiency in service. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension, harassment and loss of paddy crop to the complainant for which he claims a sum of Rs.80000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18-8-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. M.S.Brar Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that no demand notice was issued nor did the complainant deposits the balance amount as per rules and regulations of the PSEB so the complainant is only a prospective consumer of the board and not consumer. So this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to hear try the present complaint. The board issued instructions for releasing the temporary tubewell connection in the month of 6/2006. Temporary tubewell connection were issued to all the deserving applicants in the month of 6/2006 whereas the complainant filed this complaint on 14/8/2006 at much belated stage. As per rules and regulations of the PSEB for temporary tubewell connections were to be given for the period from the month of 6/2006 to 30/9/2006. He has filed this complaint when only 46 days were left when the connections were to be disconnected. So the complainant was not entitled for the temporary tubewell connection. On merits it is admitted that the complainant deposited Rs.100/- as processing fee for obtaining the temporary tubewell connection for the paddy session 2006. On receipt of the application Amrik Singh AJE visited the site and found where the complainant wanted to take the connection a permanent connection is already running on the bore. When the AJE told the complainant that where a permanent connection is already running a second connection on the same place cannot be issued then the complainant showed another site. The AJE found the length of the line 220 meters from the existing pole. As per rules of the PSEB temporary tubewell connection beyond 110 meters cannot be released. This connection was to be released from 100 KVA transformer known as Kartar Singh Wala transformer. Along with the application of complainant the applications of other applicants those who wanted to take temporary connection were also entrusted to Amrik Singh AJE, the application of Nachhttar Singh was found to be within the permissible limit and the temporary tubewell connection was given to him whereas on all other applications including the application of the complainant the AJE made a report that temporary tubewell connection does not fall within the permissible limit. As such they are not entitled to take temporary tubewell connection. So the application of the complainant was rejected. It is wrong that the Amrik Singh AJE demanded Rs.5000/- for releasing the temporary tubewell connection. As Amrik Singh AJE reported that the site where the connection is wanted to be released is beyond 220 meters from the existing pole and due to this grudge the complainant has made a false allegations against Amrik Singh AJE regarding illegal gratification Rs.5000/-. At the time of submitted application for temporary tubewell connection the complainant intentionally did not mention the Khasra number where he wants to take the connection. The site was checked in the presence of the complainant. So the question of submitted false report does not arise. The complaint has been filed on false and fictitious grounds so the complainant is not entitled to claim compensation Rs.80000/- and also not entitled to claim litigation expenses. So the complaint may be dismissed. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, copy of receipt No. 280 dated 18/6/2004 Ex.C-3, copy of receipt No. 39 dated 7/6/2006 Ex.C-4, copy of receipt No. 440 dated 20/7/2005 Ex.C-5, copy of affidavit of Kartar Singh Ex.C-6, original bill of diesel dated 11/9/2006 Ex.C-7, bills of diesel Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-9, receipt of payment dated 15/9/2006 Ex.C-10, sketch Ex.C-11 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered affidavit of Major Singh AAE PSEB Jaitu Ex.R-1, affidavit of Amrik Singh AJE Jaitu Sub Division PSEB Jaitu Ex.R-2, attested copy of checking report dated 13/6/2006 Ex.R-3, attested copy of load register Ex.R-4 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had been availing facility of temporary seasonal electric connection for the year 2004 and 2005 but the opposite parties refused arbitrarily to release temporary electric connection to the complainant. Though complainant has deposited amount of Rs.100/- Along with application for release of temporary electric connection vide receipt No. 39/87221 dated 7/6/2006 for 5 BHP electric motor. Even the distance from the common pole/transformer was 40 meters but the opposite parties due to ulterior motive calculate the distance which is not permissible for release of temporary electric connection by showing shifting of already working tubewell connection of the complainant. This report of Amrik Singh JE is illegal who was not pleased by the complainant for illegal demand.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that Amrik Singh JE have found distance of the line to be 220 meters from the existing pole where the complainant wanted temporary electric connection already permanent connection was running so the complainant illegally shifted his already existing electric connection so the complainant was not entitled for release of temporary electric connection. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties and documents on the file it is made out that complainant was given temporary tubewell electric connection for 5 BHP in the year 2004 and 2005. The complainant in the year 2006 has deposited necessary fee on 7/6/2006. Since the opposite parties are not released electric connection so after much wait he has to file this complaint on 14/8/2006. The temporary electric connections remain operative uptill 30/9/2006. It is not on the file if permanent electric connection was released at the site where the complainant already had been availing temporary electric connection. So the evidence of the complainant Kartar Singh in his affidavit Ex.C-1 and supplementary affidavit Ex.C-2 appears to have made his right to have temporary electric connection in the year 2006. The complainant already has submitted affidavit Ex.C-6 dated 26/7/2006 to the PSEB authorities. As per the site plan Ex.C-11 the temporary electric connection in favour of the complainant was released at account No. 228/AP. The length from the transformer was found to be 70 meters. He had two other electric connections below the above noted temporary electric connection. So the plea of the opposite parties that the distance for the site where temporary electric connection is to be released is 220 meters is based on wrong facts. The opposite parties have molded the facts so that no temporary electric connection is released in favour of the complainant perhaps due to the reasons that he had been making complaints against the employees of the PSEB. The calculations of the distance and shifting of the permanent electric connection by the complainant to a distant site to get a temporary electric connection at the permissible site appears to have been wrongly prepared by the opposite parties. The complainant wanted temporary tubewell connection in the year 2006 at the place where he already had been availing temporary electric connection for the year 2004 and 2005. In such like circumstances the opposite parties have caused great mental tension and harassment to the complainant who had to spent huge amount to operate his tubewell through the engine for which he has placed on the file bills Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-10 for purchase of diesel. <br /> 11. Admittedly the complainant has moved application for release of temporary electric connection on 7/6/2006 so as per M/s New Punjab Cold Storage V/s Punjab State Electricity Board and others reported in Judicial Reports Consumer 2000 page-89 the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. In such like circumstances The Asstt. Engineer R.S.E.B., Churu & Others Versus Kesri Chand reported in Consumer Protection Judgments 11 (1995)-4 and Sita Ram Yadav Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and another reported in Consumer Protection Judgments 1995-228 relief upon by the opposite parties having different facts and circumstances then that of the case in hand is not helpful to the opposite parties. Even the authority M/s New Punjab Cold Storage Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others supra relied to consumer dispute in Punjab whereas above noted authorities relied upon by the opposite parties is related to State of Rajasthan. As per Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr. Vs. Bhagwan Dass reported in Consumer Protection Judgments 2005 page-371 the complainant is entitled to the compensation as opposite parties have been negligent in releasing of the electric connection so there is deficiency of service to be provided by the opposite parties to the complainant. <br /> 12. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted with costs of Rs. 500/- to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 2/8/2007