Jagtar Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to immediate effect change of name of the electric tubewell connection applied by the father of the complainant of 7.5 BHP electric motor and to release the same immediately in the name of complainant and to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience and loss of irrigation besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that Harbachan Singh the father of the complainant has applied for 7.5. BHP tubewell connection under AP category with the opposite parties vide A&A form No. 286 dated 9/5/1990 and also deposited Rs.23,290/- vide receipt No. 488 dated 26/4/2005 as per demand notice issued by the opposite party No. 2 and also completed all the required formalities but the opposite parties have not released the electric tubewell connection. S. Harbachan Singh father of the complainant expired on 18/4/2006. The father of the complainant has executed a will dated 1/2/2001 during his life in favour of the complainant and his brothers Gurcharan Singh and Rachhpal Singh and mutation of inheritance in this regard has also been sanctioned. Thereafter the complainant's brothers have sworn their affidavits having no objection to affect the change of name of the electric connection in favour of the complainant. After that the complainant went to the office of the opposite party No. 2 and met with CC Parma Nand to apply for change of name of the electric connection of AP category but he has flatly refused to accept the application form of complainant for change of name which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Then the complainant met with the opposite party No. 2 and requested to accept the application form for change of name of the above said electric connection and also requested to release the electric connection in the name of complainant but he also flatly refused to agree with the complainant and refused to accept the application form for change of name and to release the electric connection 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, harassment, inconvenience and loss of agriculture produce to the complainant for which he claims Rs.70,000/- 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 9-2-2007 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. Rajneesh Garg Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the opposite parties have constituted various Disputes Settlement Committees to settle the disputes between the parties but the complainant has not put his case before the said committee, as such the present complaint is not maintainable. The opposite parties have not been properly impleaded as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The present complainant is not the consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act . On merits it is admitted that one Harbachan Singh had applied for the tubewell connection. But the connections are released according to the rules and regulations and inspections of the opposite parties. As per the instructions only those connections are to be released who are registered uptill 31/3/1988. The application of Harbachan Singh has been deposited on 9/5/1990 so the tubewell connection would be released only when the turn comes. The opposite parties cannot by pass the senior applications which are still pending. The change of the name is done after completing all the formalities of the opposite parties and it is done as per the rules and regulations. The complainant had not completed formalities as required and as per the requirement of the opposite parties. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complainant is not entitled for any compensation or litigation expenses. Hence the complaint 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 affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of application dated 30/1/2007 Ex.C-2, copy of death certificate Ex.C-3, copy of affidavit of Jagtar Singh Ex.C-4, copy of affidavit of Gurcharan Singh Ex.C-5, copy of Jamabandi Ex.C-6, copy of will Ex.C-7, copy of receipt No. 134 dated 9/5/1990 Ex.C-8, copy of receipt No. 488 dated 6/4/2005 Ex.C-9, copy of affidavit of Harbachan Singh Ex.C-10 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Amarjit Singh AEE PSEB Ex.R-1, copy of seniority list Ex.R-2 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 change of the name in the application for release of electric connection by substituting name of his father which has submitted application for release of electric tubewell connection. <br /> 9. Complainant is entitled for release of tubewell electric connection immediately as juniors to the complainant have been issued electric connections by the opposite parties. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the complainant has not completed formalities for change of the name. The turn of the complainant for release of electric connection so far has not matured. So complaint is liable to be dismissed. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the complainant moved an application Ex.C-2 on 30/1/2007 to the AEE Operation Sub Division PSEB, Jaitu with regard to change of name regarding tubewell connection in the name of the applicant. He has given details about the death of his father and submissions of the affidavit by his brothers Gurcharan Singh and Rachhpal Singh having no objection if electric connection is changed from the name of their father in the name of the complainant as their father expired on 18/4/2006 and have executed a will on 1/2/2001 in the name of all of the three sons. <br /> 11. The death certificate Ex.C-3 shows that Harbachan Singh expired on 18/4/2006. Jagtar Singh submitted affidavit with regard to consent of his brothers for change of name of applicant from the name of their father in the name of complainant Jagtar Singh. No objection affidavit Ex.C-5 of Gurcharan Singh and Rachhpal Singh also have been placed on the file of the complainant. Jamabandi Ex.C-6 shows sanctioning of mutation in the name of Gurcharan Singh, Jagtar Singh and Rachhpal Singh on the basis of the registered will Ex.C-7 dated 1/2/2001. <br /> 12. These documents have been submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties. They have not changed the name of the applicant as requested by the complainant. So in this regard the complaint of the complainant is accepted. Accordingly the opposite parties are directed to effect change of the applicant in respect of tubewell electric connection application of Harbachan Singh in the name of Jagtar Singh complainant, however the opposite parties can get filled up necessary documents from the complainant within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. <br /> 13. Since the complainant in the application Ex.C-2 dated 30/1/2007 have not made any mention with regard to release of tubewell electric connection immediately. So the plea of the opposite parties to the effect that as per seniority list Ex.R-2 the turn for the release of the tubewell electric connection so far has not matured bears to be plausible. Harbachan Singh shows at Serial no. 136 in the waiting list of release of electric connections. The complainant has not brought any record on the file if the opposite parties have broken the seniority with regard to release of electric tubewell connection. So the opposite parties can be said to have prepared seniority list Ex.R-2 as per the seniority of the applications for release of tubewell electric connections. They shall be releasing electric connections turn by turn to the applicants. So immediate electric connection cannot be ordered to be released in favour of the complainant. So in these circumstances the complaint in this regard stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 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: 3/10/2007<br />