DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.165 of 19.6.2007<br /> Decided on : 3.8.2007 <br /> <br /> Jaswinder Singh S/o Sh. Harnek Singh S/o Sh. Babu Singh, R/o Village Bhagta Bhai Ka, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. <br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2. The S.D.O, Punjab State Elecy. Board, Sub Division, Bhagta Bhai Ka, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. H.S. Aklia, 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. 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 installation order and release of 7.5 BHP electricity connection to him; pay Rs. 20,000/- as damages, besides costs of the litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that he is small farmer. He had moved an application No. 2873 to opposite party No.2 on 25.6.1986 for obtaining 7.5 BHP electricity connection for running tubewell under general category. Requisite amount was deposited. Demand notice was issued. For making compliance of it, a sum of Rs. 23,000/- was deposited by him vide receipt No. 189 dated 17.1.2007. Test report was submitted. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also deposited by him vide receipt No. 78 dated 26.12.2006. Although requisite formalities have been completed, opposite parties are not releasing electricity connection. One Ranjit Singh, who had moved application for motor connection subsequent to him, has been issued installation order. In his case, opposite parties have denied the issuance of the installation order. Opposite parties are misusing their power and are adopting pick and choose method. Due to their act and conduct, he is undergoing heavy loss as he cannot irrigate his fields. Opposite parties were requested many a times to issue the installation order, but to no effect. They are deficient in rendering services. <br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has got no locus-standi and cause of action to file it; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, complainant is not consumer and he has not come with clean hands. On merits, they admit that complainant had applied for tubewell connection under general category. They deny that complainant has submitted test report. They admit that he has only deposited the requisite fee. They do not admit that he has made compliance of the terms and conditions of the demand notice. Installation order would be issued on his turn. Inter-alia, their plea is that installation order was wrongly issued to Ranjit Singh and the same has been cancelled much prior to the filing of this complaint. They refute the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments made in the complaint, Jaswinder Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.6), photocopy of MCO dated 5.6.2007 (Ex.C.2), photocopy of receipt (Ex.C.3) & photocopies of payment receipts (Ex.C.4 & Ex.C.5). <br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Jasbir Singh, SDO, photocopy of installation order issued in favour of Ranjit Singh (Ex.R.2) and photocopy of installation order issued in favour of the complainant (Ex.R.3). <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 7. Complainant had moved an application dated 25.6.86 for getting electricity tubewell connection of 7.5 BHP under general category and had deposited requisite fee. Complainant in his affidavit Ex.C.1 reiterates his version in the complaint. Ex. C. 4 & Ex.C.5 are the copies of the receipts issued by the opposite parties according to which a sum of Rs. 23,000/- was deposited on 17.1.2007 and Rs. 1,000/- on 26.12.2006. In another affidavit Ex.C.6, complainant states that demand notice was issued by the opposite parties. Thereafter demanded amount of Rs. 23,000/- was deposited. Test report was also submitted. Installation order has been issued in favour of Sh. Ranjit Singh, who had applied subsequent to him. In order to save their skin and to give way to their own acts and conduct, opposite parties are alleging that installation order was wrongly issued in favour of Ranjit Singh and has been cancelled. <br /> 8. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Aklia, learned counsel for the complainant are that Sh. Ranjit Singh had applied for tubewell connection on 23.1.90, but installation order dated 8.6.2007, copies of which are Ex.C.3 & Ex.R.2, was issued to him. When complainant raised hue and cry by way of approaching the opposite parties, installation order in favour of Sh. Ranjit Singh has been withdrawn. He further argued that complainant made compliance of the demand notice on 17.1.2007. Despite this, electricity connection for tubewell purpose has not been released, although installation order dated 20.7.2007 has been issued, copy of which is Ex.R.3.<br /> 9. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that installation order in favour of Sh. Ranjit Singh had been wrongly issued and it has been cancelled. Now installation order for the complainant has been issued as he has made compliance of the demand notice. Electricity connection would be released as and when the material is available with the opposite parties.<br /> 10. We have considered respective arguments. Admittedly, complainant had applied for tubewell connection on 25.86, whereas Sh. Ranjit Singh had applied on 23.1.90. Despite this, installation order was issued in favour of Sh. Ranjit Singh on 8.6.2007. When complainant raised din and noise, it has been cancelled and installation order in his favour has been issued on 20.7.2007, copy of which is Ex.R.3. Electricity connection has not so far been released. In this manner, discrimination with the complainant is proved. It is also worth mentioning that opposite parties should issue demand notice very carefully and cautiously keeping in view the fact that material is available with them. Their act in issuing demand notice, getting amount deposited on its basis and thereafter, taking plea that electricity connection would be released after the material is available, is certainly arbitrary, unwarranted and against the principle of natural justice. Complainant is not getting anything in return for the amount of Rs. 23,000/- deposited by him. To the contrary, opposite parties are using his amount. They should release the electricity connection after the compliance of the demand notice is made within a reasonable time which in our view is two months. They have not released electricity connection within two months i.e. upto 17.3.2007. In these circumstances, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is writ large. <br /> 11. Now, question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to release the electricity connection to the complainant within one month. Due to the non-release of the electricity connection to the complainant within a reasonable time after the compliance of demand notice, he is undergoing pain and sufferings, harassment and loss for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs.5,000/- in view of the authority PSEB Ltd. Vs. Zora Singh & Ors.-2005 CTJ-1077 (Supreme Court)(CP).<br /> 12. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 13. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Release the electricity connection of 7.5 BHP to the complainant for tubewell purpose. <br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance 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 /> 14. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 3.8.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br />