DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 112 of 09.04.2008<br /> Decided on : 12-06-2008 <br /> <br /> Jarnail Singh aged 58 years S/o Late Sh. Kapoor Singh, R/o Village Kot Shamir, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board through its Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Division, Bathinda.<br /> 2.Asst. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Kot Shamir, 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 /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Hardev Singh Grewal, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Abhey Singla, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Sh. Kapur Singh an Ex. Serviceman was the father of the complainant. He was owning agricultural land in the revenue limits of village Kotshamir. He applied for tubewell connection of 7.5 HP motor under Ex. Serviceman quota/category to the opposite parties vide Application-cum-agreement form bearing No. 1805/AP dated 19.6.2003. Requisite security was deposited. Demand notice No. 1071 dated 17.8.2004 was issued in his name by the opposite parties requesting him to deposit Rs. 22,500/- as Service Line charges and to complete other formalities. He died before that date. Matter regarding his death was brought to the notice of the opposite parties by the complainant. Request was made by him for transferring the tubewell connection in his name. Accordingly, it was transferred. Fresh demand notice No. 2296 dated 19.10.2004 was issued in his (complainant's) name asking him to deposit Rs. 22,500/- as Service Line charges and Rs. 500/- as meter security. Accordingly, Rs. 23,000/- were deposited by him (complainant) vide receipt no. 403 Book No. D-74420. Opposite parties erected electric poles and laid electric wires thereupon. Transformer was to be installed and line was to be energised. They neither installed the Transformer nor energised the line despite repeated requests. He alleges that act of the opposite parties in not releasing electricity connection for tubewell purpose is null and void, arbitrary and unwarranted as the amount has been deposited by him about 3-1/2 years ago and he has completed all the formalities but the connection has not been released. He alleges deficiency in service 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 seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to release the electricity connection for tubewell purpose forthwith; pay Rs. 2.00 Lacs as damages to his crop; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and loss and Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version admitting that father of the complainant had applied for electricity connection in Ex. Serviceman Quota. Security amount was deposited by him. Demand notice was issued to him. He had expired. Thereafter tubewell connection was transferred in the name of the complainant. Fresh demand notice was issued to him requiring him to deposit Rs. 23,000/- which was deposited by him vide Receipt No. 403. Thereafter electric poles were erected at the site but Transformer was not installed. Inter-alia their plea is that the case of the complainant was sent by the Kot Shamir Branch to Executive Engineer for his opinion about grant of connection in the name of Jarnail Singh alone being one of the legal heirs of Kapur Singh. This branch did not receive any opinion. Complaint was filed by the complainant to the Chairman, P.S.E.B. Patiala. On its basis, Superintending Engineer Technical to member PSEB Patiala vide his Memo dated 1.1.2008 sought report from Superintending Engineer/D.S. Bathinda in the matter of release of connection to the complainant. After receipt of this memo, S.D.O. Sub-division Kot Shamir vide his memo No. 74 dated 11.1.2008 brought the matter to the notice of Executive Engineer that case of the complainant was sent to the office of Senior Executive Engineer, D.S. Maur Division alongwith letter No. 5690 dated 19.6.2006, but no approval or opinion was received from him due to which tubewell connection could not be released. It is further added by them (opposite parties) that complainant has set up a will dated 16.2.99 from his father in his favour. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence photocopy of Jamabandi (Ex. C-1), photocopies of demand notices(Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-4), photocopy of Mutation No. 18786 (Ex. C-5) and his affidavit (Ex. C-6).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit (Ex. R-1) of Sh. Hem Raj Singla (Ex. R-1) and photocopy of Memo dated 11.1.08 (Ex. R-2) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Ex. C-6 is the affidavit of the complainant in which he reiterates his version in the complaint. Admittedly demand notice, copy of which is Ex. C-2 was initially issued in the name of the father of the complainant. After his death, connection was transferred in the name of the complainant and revised demand notice was issued in his favour requiring him to deposit Rs. 22,500/- and another amount of Rs. 500/- as security amount. A sum of Rs. 23000/- was deposited by him vide Receipt, copy of which is Ex. C-4. After the death of his father Kapur Singh Mutation No. 18786 was entered on the basis of Will dated 16.12.99 in favour of the complainant. It was sanctioned as is evident from Ex.C-5. Note has also been given on the copy of the Jamabandi Ex. C-1 for the year 2001-2002 regarding sanctioning of Mutation No. 18786 in his favour.<br /> 7. In the affidavit Ex. R-1, opposite parties reiterate their version in the reply of the complaint. Ex. R-2 is the copy of letter of Assistant Engineer Kot Shamir addressed to Sr. Executive Engineer DS Maur Division. <br /> 8. On the basis of evidence on the record conclusion is that complainant has succeeded to the property of his father on the basis of Will as mutation has been sanctioned in his favour. He has completed all the formalities for getting released the tubewell connection. A sum of Rs. 23,000/- has been deposited by him as per requirements of the opposite parties on 25.10.04. Years have passed after the deposit of the amount but tubewell connection has not been released. Opposite parties are using the amount of the complainant to his detriment. He is being penalised without any fault on his part. Opposite parties are trying to wriggle out of the situation on the basis of their inter-se correspondence. Matter regarding which opinion was sought is over on account of the fact that Mutation regarding inheritance of Sh. Kapur Singh has been sanctioned in his favour. Opposite parties have caused inordinate delay in installing the Transformer and releasing of tubewell connection. Hence, deficiency in service on their part is writ large.<br /> 9. Now questions arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In our view it is fit case where direction should be given to the opposite parties to install the Transformer and release tubewell connection to the complainant. Complainant is claiming Rs. 2.00 Lacs as damages to his crop. There is no case to allow it as complainant has not proved damages to this extent. No cogent, convincing and satisfactory evidence has been led by him for establishing the damages. He is also craving for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- . Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused him mental tension, agony and loss to physical health. At the risk of repetition , it is again mentioned that opposite parties are using his amount without giving anything in return to him. In these circumstances, it is a fit case where some compensation to him is warranted which we assess as Rs. 5,000/-.<br /> 10. 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) Install Transformer and release electricity connection of 7.5 BHP to the complainant for running tubwell within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> ii) Pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation 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) 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 also consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 12-06-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member<br /> 'iki' <br />