DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.164 of 15.6.2007<br /> Decided on : 7.8.2007 <br /> <br /> Kewal Singh S/o Sh. Dev Singh, R/o Village Kotha Guru, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant <br /> Versus <br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Elecy. Board, Sub Division Bhagta Bhai Ka, 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 /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Jasvir Singh, 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 regularize his temporary/kundi connection; pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages for mental tension, agony and harassment, besides Rs. 5,000/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put, the case of the complainant is that he is an Agriculturist and owns agricultural land in the revenue limits of village Kotha Guru. Canal water with which he was irrigating his land was insufficient for getting maximum yield. On 27.6.2005, he had applied for Kundi/temporary connection of 5 BHP. A sum of Rs. 7,500/- was deposited by him towards service connection charges vide receipt No. 252 dated 27.6.2006. Again a sum of Rs. 100/- was deposited by him vide receipt dated 5.6.2006. On 11.5.2006, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was deposited by him as security vide receipt No. 490 for AP connection under general category. Assurance was given by the opposite parties that Kundi connection would be regularized. He (complainant) alleges that opposite parties are not taking any action for regularization of his electricity connection for tubewell purpose. No demand notice has been issued to him. To the contrary, temporary connections in the cases of Balwinder Singh S/o Sh. Niranjan Singh and Harbans Kaur W/o Bahadur Singh, resident of village Kotha Guru, who applied subsequent to him, have been regularized. Opposite parties were required to release the electricity connection within 2/3 months after the deposit of the security, but nothing has been done. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties which has caused him mental tension, agony and loss of physical health. <br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has got no locus-standi and cause of action; he has not come with clean hands and he is not consumer. On merits, they admit that complainant had applied for getting temporary electricity connection for running tubewell by way of depositing service connection charges on 27.6.2005 vide receipt No. 252. Connection was issued under the rules and regulations of the Board which was called “Kundi” connection. It was disconnected on 30.9.2005. A sum of Rs. 7,500/- deposited by the complainant was not deposited for getting regular tubewell connection. A sum of Rs. 100/- was deposited by him vide receipt No. 60 dated 5.6.2006 again for getting kundi connection. It was issued and was subsequently disconnected as per rules and regulations. Rs. 1,000/- were deposited by the complainant vide receipt No. 490 dated 11.5.2006 at the time of applying for regular tubewell connection under general category. Complainant is not entitled to get permanent tubewell connection because the applications of the other persons who have applied prior to him, are pending. No assurance was given to him at any time to regularize the temporary/kundi connection on the basis of the temporary tubewell connection. He was not eligible for regularizing temporary tubewell connection. Demand notice would be issued to him at his turn on the basis of the application dated 11.5.2006. Connections of Balwinder Singh and Harbans Kaur were regularized. According to the circular, Kundi connections of the consumers were to be regularized who had applied before 31.5.2005 for getting temporary tubewell connection. They are not bound to release the connection within 2/3 months after deposit of the security. They deny remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Kewal Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.8), copy of Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 (Ex.C.2) & photocopies of payment receipts (Ex.C.3 to Ex.C.7). <br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Jasbir Singh, SDO, copy of certificate (Ex.R.2), photocopy of A&A Form (Ex.R.3), photocopy of chart showing temporary connections regularized as per C/Cs No. 9/2006 & 12/2006 (Ex.R.4), photocopy of installation order issued in favour of Balwinder Singh (Ex.R.5), copy of certificate issued regarding release of connection to Harbans Kaur (Ex.R.6), photocopy of one page of A&A Form register (Ex.R.7), photocopy of one page of list regarding temporary connections regularized as per C/Cs No. 9/2006 & 12/2006 (Ex.R.8) & photocopy of SCO dated 4.7.2006 (Ex.R.9).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written submissions submitted by the parties. <br /> 7. Complainant in his affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.8 reiterates his version in the complaint. Material documents on the record are Ex.C.3 to Ex.C.7. As per Ex.C.5, a sum of Rs. 7,500/- was deposited by the complainant on 27.6.2005 towards service connection charges for temporary connection. According to Commercial Circular No. 25/05 dated 25.4.2005, one could apply for temporary tubewell connection by way of depositing Rs.100/- as non-refundable processing fee. If it was technically feasible to release the applied load, demand notice was to be issued immediately asking him to deposit charges @ Rs.1,500/- per BHP which were non-refundable, for getting temporary tubewell connection. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 7,500/- was deposited by the complainant vide receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.4. Temporary tubewell connections so given were to be disconnected by 30.9.2005. Accordingly, temporary tubewell connection of the complainant was disconnected on 30.9.2005 as is evident from affidavit Ex.R.1of Sh. Jasbir Singh, SDO. Complainant applied for regular tubewell connection under general category on 11.5.2006 by depositing Rs. 1,000/- as is evident from Ex.C.3. This amount was deposited as per Sales Regulation No. 10.1. Again complainant deposited Rs. 100/- on 5.6.2006 for temporary/kundi connection. So far as Balwinder Singh is concerned, he had submitted A&A form under general category on 7.2.90 as is evident from Ex.R.3 and husband of Harbans Kaur had submitted A&A form under general category on 2.2.90 as is clear from Ex.R.7. In this manner, Balwinder Singh was senior to the complainant. Similarly, husband of Harbans Kaur had applied much prior to the day complainant had applied. Harbans Kaur had stepped into the shoes of her husband. Their connections have been regularized. They have already deposited service connection charges as is obvious from Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7. Their temporary connections have been made regular vide Service Connection Order dated 4.7.2006. As per Commercial Circular No. 9/2006, only those applicants who had otherwise registered their applications with PSEB for release of regular tubewell connection under general category or any priority category upto 31.5.2005 and were released temporary tubewell connections during the paddy season of 2005 were to be considered for regularization under priority scheme. Eligible applicant could opt for regularization upto 15.3.2006. In this case, complainant applied for release of regular tubewell connection under general category much after 31.5.2005 i.e. on 11.5.2006 vide receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.3. Hence, as per Commercial Circular No. 9/2006, he did not become eligible for getting his temporary tubewell connection got during the paddy season of 2005 regularized. So far as release of tubewell connection to him on the basis of application dated 11.5.2006 under general category is concerned, he is junior to other persons whose applications are pending as is clear from Ex.R.4. Since, his connection cannot be regularized under Commercial Circular No. 9/2006 and regular tubewell connection cannot be released to him out of turn, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 8. In the result, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 7.8.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member Member <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />