DISTRICT CONSUMERDISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No.322 of 12.11.2007 Decided on : 7.2.2008 <br /> <br /> Gurjinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, R/o village Bajak, Tehsil & District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2. Superintending Engineer, DS Circle, Punjab State Elecy. Board, Muktsar.<br /> 3. Senior Executive Engineer, DS Division, Punjab State Elecy. Board, Badal <br /> 4. Assistant Executive Engineer, DS Sub Division, Punjab State <br /> Electricity Board, Badal.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 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. Kanwaljot Singh, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Abhey Singla, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to issue him demand notice immediately and subsequently release and instal tubewell connection as per his priority category; pay him Rs. 50,000/- for harassment, mental tension, agony and loss to his crop, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant as emanates from the complaint itself resulting into its filing may be epitomized as under :-<br /> Complainant is an Agriculturist. He had made request for release of electricity connection for running the tubewell under Chairman's Discretionary Quota. It was acceded to by the Chairman by way of approving the priority. Letter dated 23.12.2006 was issued by Deputy Director/Sales to the Superintending Engineer/DS Circle, Punjab State Electricity Board, Muktsar. Copy of this letter was sent to the complainant vide endorsement No. 92690/94 dated 29.12.2006. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by him vide receipt No. 435/83794 dated 28.3.2007 as per directions/conditions given in the approval letter and as per information received from the Assistant Engineer (Operation), Punjab State Electricity Board, Badal vide memo No. 197 dated 14.3.2007 in respect of the processing charges etc. for release of the tubewell connection of 10 BHP. He has also submitted A&A form alongwith other documents in the office of opposite party no. 4. He was continuously following up the case with the authorities of the opposite parties at Badal and they were misguiding him. It is alleged by him that he has come to know that persons who have applied for tubewell connections under Chairman's Discretionary Quota and are junior to him are being issued demand notices. Discriminatory treatment is being given to him. So much so even tubewell connections have been released to his juniors. In these circumstances, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties which has caused him mental tension, harassment and loss to his crop.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version admitting that request of the complainant for release of tubewell connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota was accepted by the Chairman. Letter was sent to the Superintending Engineer, DS Circle, Punjab State Electricity Board, Muktsar on 23.12.2006 with copy to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by the him on 28.3.2007 as per terms and conditions of the letter of approval for release of 10 BHP tubewell connection. Request of the complainant was sanctioned in December, 2006. Memo No. 91432 dated 23.12.2006 was issued. Complainant had completed the formalities on 28.3.2007 including the deposit of the amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Director, Sales-1 of the Board had imposed ban on the issue of demand notices to all applicants who were allotted tubewell connections on priority under Discretionary Quota of the Chairman vide fax message dated 26.3.2007. Since the complainant had submitted A&A Form and deposited RS. 20,000/- on 28.3.2007, demand notice was not issued to him. Thereafter, Board vide Commercial Circular No. 13/2007 had converted the Discretionary Quota of the Chairman, PSEB to Discretionary Quota of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Subsequently, this Discretionary Quota of Hon'ble Chief Minister was again converted to Discretionary Quota of the Chairman, PSEB vide Commercial Circular No. 33/2007 dated 5.7.2007. Director, Sales-1, PSEB, Patiala vide memo No. 1394/1401 dated 15.10.2007 has allowed issuance of demand notices to all those applicants under the priority of Discretionary Quota of the Chairman who got registered their applications under Chairman's priority quota before 26.3.2007. Since the complainant had got registered his application under priority on 28.3.2007, demand notice could not be issued to him. They deny that discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the complainant. Remaining averments are not admitted by them.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurjinder Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.9), photocopies of letters dated 23.12.2006, 14.3.2007 & 15.10.2007 (Ex.C.1, Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.8), photocopy of receipt dated 28.3.2007 (Ex.C.3), photocopy of seniority list (Ex.C.4), photocopy of demand notice dated 25.5.2007 (Ex.C.5) & photocopies of Commercial Circulars No. 13/2007 and 33/2007 (Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Gurdeep Singh, SDO.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 7. Mr. Kanwaljot Singh, learned counsel for the complainant vociferously argued that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not issuing demand notice to the complainant and thereafter in not releasing the tubewell connection to the complainant is proved. Opposite parties have gone to the extent of issuing demand notices and releasing tubewell connections to the persons junior to the complainant.<br /> 8. Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that demand notice could not be issued to the complainant due to the Fax message dated 26.3.2007. Opposite parties have acted according to this fax message of Director, Sales-1, who had imposed ban w.e.f. 26.3.2007 on issue of demand notice to all applicants who were allotted tubewell connections on priority under Discretionary Quota of the Chairman w.e.f. 26.3.2007. Moreover, complainant had deposited the requisite amount in compliance of the letters, copies of which are Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2, on 28.3.2007.<br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments. There is no dispute about the fact that letter dated 23.12.2006, copy of which is Ex.C.1, was issued by Deputy Director, Sales to the Superintending Engineer, DS Circle, PSEB, Muktsar. According to it, complainant was allowed 10 BHP connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota on priority. As per its terms and conditions, complainant was to deposit the requisite amount. Letter No. 197 dated 14.3.2007 was written to the complainant. In compliance of the letters, copies of which are Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by the complainant on 28.3.2007 vide receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.3. Fax message dated 26.3.2007 was received according to which it was decided to stop the issuance of demand notice to all applicants who had been allowed priority under Chairman's Discretionary Quota w.e.f. 26.3.2007. Vide Commercial Circular No. 13/2007, copy of which is Ex.C.6, Chairman's quota to the extent of 5% was declared discretionary quota of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. This circular is dated 29.3.2007. This Discretionary Quota of the Hon'ble Chief Minister was again re-converted to the Discretionary Quota of the Chairman, PSEB vide Commercial Circular No. 33/2007 dated 5.7.2007. Terms and conditions remained the same. Ban imposed vide fax message dated 26.3.2007 has been lifted vide letter dated 15.10.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.8. As per letter, copy of which is Ex.C.1, the priority is admissible to the complainant upto the stage of release of the connection as per earlier guidelines. There is nothing before us that earlier guidelines have ever been withdrawn by the opposite parties. Despite lifting the ban vide letter dated 15.10.2007, demand notice has not been issued to the complainant by the opposite parties for releasing the tubewell connection. Opposite parties have got deposited the amount on 28.3.2007. They are using the amount of the complainant to his detriment without giving anything in return to him. No rule, regulation and commercial circular has been shown to us according to which demand notice cannot be issued and connection cannot be released to the persons who have deposited the amount and got registered their applications after 26.3.2007. In such like case, tubewell connection is to be given on priority basis. It cannot be expected from the Board that it should make the applicant wait indefinitely. As per seniority list, copy of which is Ex.C.4, electricity connections have been released to the applicants mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 12. Gurbachan Singh is at Serial no. 12 under Hon'ble Chief Minister's Quota. Demand notice and electricity connection have been released to him on the basis of his application no. 4734 dated 21.5.2007. At Serial Nos. 13 and 14 of Ex.C.4 are Sohan Singh and Gursewak Singh whose applications are dated 25.1.2007 and 19.3.2007 respectively. Demand notices have been issued to them. Opposite parties have not made it clear in the seniority list Ex.C.4 that demand notices were issued to them prior to 26.3.2007 or thereafter. Similarly, it is not known as to whether electricity connections have been released to Sohan Singh and Gursewak Singh or not. In the facts, circumstances and as per Ex.C.4, complainant is at Serial No. 1 for issuance of demand notice which has not been issued despite the fact that hurdle created vide fax message dated 26.3.2007 has been removed. Accordingly, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 10. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. As per forgoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties for issuance of the demand notice to the complainant for release of 10 BHP electricity connection for running the tubewell. Further direction deserves to be given is that electricity connection of 10 BHP be given to the complainant within two months from the date of compliance of the demand notice to be issued in case the electricity connection has already been released to Sh. Gursewak Singh mentioned at Sr. No. 14 of the seniority list, copy of which is Ex.C.4. In case, complainant makes compliance of the demand notice and electricity connection has not so far been released to Gursewak Singh, he (complainant) be released electricity connection within two months from the date of release of connection to Gursewak Singh mentioned at Sr. No. 14 of the seniority list, copy of which is Ex.C.4. Due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties in not issuing demand notice, complainant must have undergone mental tension, agony and harassment for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 2,000/-.<br /> 11. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 12. In the result, complaint is accepted against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Issue demand notice concerning 10 BHP electricity connection to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> ( ii ) Release 10 BHP electricity connection to the complainant for tubewell purposes within two months from the date of compliance of the demand notice to be issued in case the electricity connection has already been released to Gursewak Singh mentioned at Sr. No. 14 of the seniority list, copy of which is Ex. C.4. In case, complainant makes compliance of the demand notice and electricity connection has not so far been released to Gursewak Singh, he (complainant) be released electricity connection within two months from the date of release of connection to Gursewak Singh mentioned at Sr. No. 14 of the seniority list, copy of which is Ex.C.4.<br /> ( iii ) Pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iv ) Compliance with regard to payment of compensation and costs be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 13. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 7.2.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />