Daljit Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to immediate shift the connection of the complainant as applied for by the father of the complainant and to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that previously S. Kartar Singh the father of the complainant was the consumer of the opposite parties having a electric tubewell connection bearing account No. DB-143 for 7.5 BHP electric motor. Said Kartar Singh applied for shifting of the tubewell connection from its existing place to other place of Khasra No. 799/7 by depositing the requisite fee. After processisng the matter the opposite parties issued a demand notice and the father of the complainant was directed to deposit Rs.38,033/- as shifting fee which was deposited by Kartar Singh vide receipt No. 210/93177 dated 10/5/2006. After that the opposite parties withdraw the material from the store, and installed the poles at side for shifting of the tubewell connection but did not release/shifted the connection of the complainant. Meanwhile Kartar Singh the father of the complainant expired on 15/9/2006 and after his death in a settlement the land as well as the connection in question fell into the share of complainant, and intimation to this effect is also sent to the opposite parties, as such thereafter the complainant became owner and in possession of the above connection, as such the complainant has become the consumer of the opposite parties being the legal heir of the said Kartar Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that the other legal heirs of Kartar Singh also gave a no objection by sworning an affidavit dated 10/1/2007. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 with the request to shift the tubewell connection of the complainant from its existing place to khasra No. 799/7 as the bore at existing place has become damages but the opposite party No. 2 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant, and then flatly refused to shift the tubewell connection of the complainant which amounts to clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which he claims Rs.80,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 25-1-2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. M.S.Brar Advocate and filed written reply in which the opposite parties admitted that Kartar Singh applied for shifting of the tubewell connection in khasra No. 799/7 and deposited Rs.500/- as processisng fee vide receipt No. 518/80339 dated 13/3/2006. It is also correct that after depositing the process fee a detailed estimate for shifting the tubewell connection was prepared. A notice vide memo No. 751 dated 4/5/2006 with a direction to deposit Rs.38,033/- was issued to the complainant and he was also informed to the complainant and he was also informed that 10 KVA transformer be purchased by him which will be inspected by the PSEB and will be sealed. The complainant deposited Rs.38,033/- vide receipt BA 16 No. 210/93177 dated 10/5/2006 but he did not purchase the transformer so far inspite sof the information given. He also submitted the test report alongwith a letter issued to Kartar Singh vide memo No. 751 dated 4/5/2006. While preparing the estimate the cost of the transformer was not included in the estimate as the provision was made in the estimate that private transformer of 10 KVA will be provided by the complainant because at that time the PSEB was not purchasing the 10 KVA transformer but inspite of the written notice given to the complainant, the complainant failed to purchase 10 KVA transformer and due to that reason the shifting of the connection could not be made. It is correct that the job order No. 109/39496 dated 10/5/2006 was issued and concerned JE completed the work and he submitted report in the office that he has already completed the work according to the estimate. It was categorically mentioned in the job order that the transformer be installed which was to be provided by the complainant. No information regarding death of Kartar Singh was given to the opposite parties. The information of settlement of land was not given to the opposite parties. The complainant did not purchase the transformer nor did the legal heirs of Kartar Singh purchase the transformer in question. So the connection could not be shifted. The complainant is not complying with the rules and regulations sof the PSEB so the question of payment of compensation to the complainant does not arise. So the complaint be dismissed with costs.<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, photocopy of affidavit of Harnek Singh Ex.C-2, copy of pass book Ex.C-3, receipt No. 210 dated 10/5/2006 Ex.C-4, copy of death certificate of Kartar Singh Ex.C-5, application dated 9/3/2006 Ex.C-6, copy of A&A form Ex.C-7, copy of SIO Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of V. K. Bansal AEE City Sub Division PSEB Kotkapura Ex.R-1, attested copy of job order No. 109/39496 dated 10/5/2006 Ex.R-2, attested copy of memo No. 751 dated 4/5/2006 Ex.R-3, attested copy of test report Ex.R-4, attested copy of estimate Ex.R-5, attested copy of application dated 9/3/2006 Ex.R-6, 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 is entitled for shifting of tubewell connection bearing account No. DV-143 applied in the name of his father without payment of the costs of the transformer. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant have been given direction by the opposite parties vide letter No. 751 dated 4/5/2006 to deposit Rs.38,033/-. He was also informed about purchase of 10 KVA transformer by him and it was required to be inspected by the PSEB before its sealing. Complainant though have deposited the requisite amount but have not purchased and got inspected transformer of 10 KVA, so the complainant is not entitled for shifting of electric tubewell connection. <br /> 10. All of the facts on the file stand admitted but the complainant place reliance on commercial circular No. 28/2007 dated 18/6/2007 in which the PSEB have agreed to provide transformers for the purpose of shifting of the electric connections, if installation of the transformers is necessary. Even in this circular itself it is found provided that where notice has already been issued to the consumer on or before 30/9/2006 for deposit of charges for shifting of tubewell connection then shifting shall be carried as per notice served to the consumer. As per instructions vide Commercial Circular No 57/2006 the notice Ex.R-3 already stood issued by the opposite parties to the complainant on 4/5/2006 requiring the complainant to purchase and get checked 10 KVA transformer for the purpose of sealing of the same by the opposite parties so that shifting process is completed. In letter Ex.R-2 dated 10/5/2006 entire work has been completed with regard to shifting of the electric connection but the transformer only was required to be got installed by the complainant on his own expenses. <br /> 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and documents on the file it is made out that there is no deficiency of service to be provided by the opposite parties to the complainant. Compensation cannot take benefit of his own lapses. So the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. However there is no order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. 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: 10/10/2007<br /> <br />