DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 181 of 04.07.2007<br /> Decided on : 18-09-2007 <br /> <br /> Gurmail Singh S/o Dalip Singh, R/o Village Aklia Jalal, District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala; through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2.Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban SubDivision, Bhagta Bhai Ka, District Bathinda.<br /> 3.Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Nathana Road, Bhagta Bhai Ka, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Amrit Pal Singh, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. R.D. Goyal, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Complainant is an agriculturist having agricultural land in the area of village Aklia Jalal. Three tube well connections against payment of requisite fee were applied for by him. His applications were registered at Sr. No. 6038, 6039 and 7143 dated 30.1.90, 30.1.90 and 13.2.90 respectively. Punjab State Electricity Board (Here-in-after referred to as `Board') had floated Self Financing Scheme (Here-in-after referred to as 'SFS') for release of tube well connections against deposit of Rs. 200/- per BHP with minimum amount of Rs. 1000/- with the assurance that after payment of the requisite fee consumer would be released connection on priority basis and date of seniority would be determined with respect to the original date of application. Accordingly, amount of Rs. 1,000/- was deposited by him (complainant) for each connection for release of connections on priority basis. More than 15 years have elapsed but till date no demand notice has been issued. Opposite parties were approached by him and application dated 24.4.07 was also moved. Persons who had applied for release of tube well connections under general category after him, had not deposited amount of Rs. 1,000/- and had not been brought under SFS for release of connections on priority basis, have been released tube well connections by the opposite parties. Names of the some of the consumers to whom connections have been released are as under :-<br /> Name of Person No. of application Date of applications<br /> Mall Singh S/o Gajjan Singh 5775 29.01.1990 <br /> Vil. Sukhanand,Distt.Bathinda<br /> <br /> Kartar Singh S/o Karam Singh 5839 29.01.1990<br /> Village Sukhanand,Distt.Bathinda.<br /> <br /> Mukhtiar Kaur W/o Balwant Singh 5881 29.01.1990<br /> Village Burj Ladha. Distt.Bathinda <br /> <br /> Mitt Singh S/o Bakhtaur Singh 6708 05.02.1990<br /> Vill. Dialpura, Distt.Bathinda.<br /> <br /> Ram Rakha S/o Bishan Singh, 6242 02.02.1990<br /> Vill. Sukhanand, Distt.Bathinda. <br /> <br /> Megh Ram S/o Hans Raj 7212 16.02.1990<br /> Vill. Kotha Guru, Distt.Bathinda.<br /> He alleges discrimination in releasing the connection on the part of the opposite parties. Legal notice was served upon them by the complainant through his counsel, but to no effect. Act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused him financial loss, physical and mental agony. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by him seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to release him tube well connections at the earliest; pay Rs. 50,000/- to him on account of compensation and financial loss and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and complainant is not consumer. On merits, they admit that three tube well connections were applied for by the complainant. His applications were registered at Sr. Nos. 3068, 3069 and 7143 dated 30.1.90, 30.1.90 and 13.2.90. Complainant had opted for SFS for his two applications after depositing Rs. 1000/- each on 2.9.92 and for third one by way of depositing Rs. 1,000/- on 19.2.92. (Infact 11.9.92). According to clause No. 8 sub para of this scheme, it has been mentioned that applicants who had opted earlier under SFS upto 31.1.91 against the applications registered upto 30.11.90, should be issued demand notice in the first instance under SFS. Complainant does not fall under this period as per circular No. 29/92. After that other circulars No. 27/93, 42/96 and 36/2001 were issued according to which demand notices were not issued to the complainant. Terms and conditions of these circulars are not applicable to the complainant. Letter has been issued to Higher Authorities, Patiala for getting the sanction for issuing demand notices to those applicants who had applied and opted for SFS. Separate seniority list has been prepared for the persons who had applied under general category and who had applied under SFS. Demand notices were issued to the persons who had applied under general category when their turn came. After they had complied with the terms and conditions of the demand notices, connections have been issued to them. Megh Raj applied under general category and connection has rightly been issued to him. They admit the receipt of legal notice. According to them, reply of the notice was sent. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopies of payment receipts (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-6), photocopies of letters (Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-9), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex. C-10 to Ex. C-12), photocopy of reply of legal notice (Ex. C-13) and photocopy of commercial circular No. 31/90 (Ex. C-14).<br /> 4. In reubttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Jasbir Singh, S.DO. (Ex. R-1), photocopy of list of application under SFS 1992 (Ex. R-2), photocopy of memo dated 29.5.07 (Ex. R-3), photocopy of Memo dated 21.6.07 (Ex. R-4) and photocopy of memo dated 12.7.07 (Ex. R-5) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite parties.<br /> 6. Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that it is a case where opposite parties have shown discrimination towards the complainant in not issuing demand notices and releasing connections. Complainant had opted two tube well connections under SFS on 2.9.92 and 3rd one on 11.9.92 by way of depositing the requisite amount. His applications were registered for release of connections on 30.1.90, 30.1.90 and 13.2.90 respectively. Despite this, no demand notices have been issued to him. To the contrary, opposite parties have released electricity connections to Megh Raj and others under general category. Connections were required to be issued to the complainant on priority basis. Serious prejudice has been caused to him.<br /> 7. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that complainant had opted SFS as per commercial circular No. 29/92 by way of depositing Rs. 1,000/- for each of the two connections on 2.9.92 and Rs. 1,000/- for the 3rd one on 11.9.92. Demand notices could not be issued to the complainant because his case was not falling within the purview of commercial circulars No. 29/92, 27/93, 42/96 and 36/2001. Now opposite parties have got the sanction from the Higher Authorities for issuing demand notices to him and others and they are being issued serialwise as per their seniority. Commercial circular No. 31/90 is not applicable to the case in hand. There is no discrimination with the complainant in issuing the demand notices.<br /> 8. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 9. Complainant had applied for release of three tube well connections. Requisite fee was deposited by him for two connections on 30.1.90 and for 3rd one on 13.2.90 at Sl. Nos. 6038, 6039 and 7143 respectively. SFS was floated by the Board. Accordingly, complainant opted for this scheme for two connections on 2.9.92 as is evident from Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-6 and for 3rd one on 11.9.92 as is clear from Ex. C-5 on the basis of his applications registered on 30.1.90, 30.1.90 and 13.2.90 respectively. According to commercial circular No. 31/90, target was for release of 10,000 tube well connections. As per this commercial circular option could be given for adopting this scheme before 31.7.90. As per commercial circular No. 29/92, scheme could be opted upto 31.10.92. Accordingly, complainant opted this scheme for two connections on 2.9.92 and for 3rd one on 11.9.92 by way of depositing Rs. 1,000/- for each of the connections. Complainant had moved an application to the S.D.O. Sub Division, Bhagta Bhai Ka. Concerned official has also made the report on it admitting that requisite amount was deposited for two connections on 2.9.92 and for another connection on 11.9.92. Complainant opted for this scheme on the assurance that connection would be released on priority basis. Not to speak of release of connections, even demand notices have not been issued to him as is evident from his affidavit Ex. C-1. No doubt opposite parties have placed on record copy of the list of the applications under SFS 1992 which is Ex. R-2 and in it names of the complainant figures for three connections at Sr. Nos. 39,41 and 223. Opposite parties admit that demand notice was issued to Megh Raj and electricity connection has also been released to him under general category. His date of application was 16.2.90. As mentioned above, complainant applied for two connections on 30.1.90 and for third connection on 13.2.90. He opted priority category of SFS . In this case more than 15 years have passed after the complainant moved for release of tube well connections to him but no demand notices have been issued although he opted for priority category and deposited the amount prescribed by the opposite parties. There is no specific denial that demand notices have not been issued to Mall Singh, Kartar Singh, Mukhtiar Kaur, Mitt Singh, Ram Rakha and Hansraj. Learned counsel for the opposite parties drew our attention to Clause d(ii) of commercial circular No. 29/92 according to which demand notices to the applicants who had registered their applications upto 31.3.91 and are now opting for this scheme shall be subsequently issued after incorporating the charges as per para (c) above. Word subsequently used in Clause d(ii) does not mean that demand notices to the applicants whose applications were registered upto 31.3.91 and thereafter as per commercial circular No. 29/92 would not be issued to them for an indefinite period. From word demand notice to them would be issued subsequently means that they would be issued demand notices within a reasonable time. Complainant opted for SFS from general category. Despite this, demand notices have not been issued to him although persons who had applied for release of connections subsequent to him have been issued demand notices and electricity connections have been released to them. Moreover, matter stands clinched with the copies of the letters Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-5. Action against the defaulting officer/officials who did not issue demand notices to the applicants registered under SFS upto 31..3.90 has been recommended. Ex. R-5 is the copy of the letter of Dy. Director/Sales-V for Chief Engineer Commercial to the Chief Engineer/DS West, PSEB, Bathinda. According to it all the applications registered under SFS upto 31.3.90 should have been issued demand notices during the last year alongwith general category applicants as per their seniority based on the date of registration of application. This letter is dated 12.7.07. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established as demand notices to the complainant have not been issued after the <br /> compliance of which connections were to be released.<br /> 10. Now questions arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Direction deserve to be given to the opposite parties to issue demand notices to the complainant for all the three tube well connections. Opposite parties have not established upto which seniority number demand notices have been issued and electricity connections have been released under SFS. Further direction deserves to be given that after the compliance of the demand notice is made by the complainant, connections be released to him within two months which in our view is a reasonable time. Due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties and deficiency in service on their part, complainant must have undergone financial loss, mental and physical agony. Opposite parties are using the amount deposited by the complainant to his detriment without any return to him. Hence, we find it a fit case where direction be given to the opposite parties to pay reasonable compensation which we assess as Rs. 5,000/- in this case.<br /> 11. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 12. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Issue demand notices to the complainant for all the three tube well electricity connections applied for by him within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order allowing him to make compliance of them within one month thereafter. <br /> ii) Release three tube well electricity connections to him within two months from the date of compliance of the terms and conditions of the demand notice.<br /> iii) Pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 14(1) (d) of the Act. <br /> Compliance with regard to payment of cost and compensation be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act would carry interest @9% P.A. till payment.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 18-09-2007 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> <br />