DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 194 of 11.07.2007<br /> Decided on : 18-09-2007 <br /> <br /> Makhan Singh S/o Ghuman Singh, R/o Village Bhodipura, District Bathinda. ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala; through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2.Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban Sub Division, Bhagta Bhai Ka, District Bathinda.<br /> 3.Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Nathana Road, Bhagta Bhai Ka, 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 /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Amrit Pal 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. Complainant through this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') seeks direction from this Forum to the opposite parties for release of tube well connection at the earliest; payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and financial loss and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Factual matrix of the case may be stated as under :-<br /> Complainant is an agriculturist. He owns agricultural land in the revenue limits of Village Aklia Jalal. Application was moved by him for getting tube well connection. Requisite fee of Rs.160/- was deposited by him vide receipt No. 93/129164 dated 6.2.90. Thereafter Punjab State Electricity Board (Here-in-after referred to as 'Board') had floated a new scheme under the name and style of Self Financing Scheme (Here-in-after referred to as 'SFS') for release of tube well connections against deposit of Rs. 200/- per BHP with minimum amount of Rs. 1,000/-. It was assured that after payment of the fee, consumer would be released connection on priority basis and date of seniority would be determined with respect to the original date of application. Accordingly amount of Rs. 1,000/- was deposited by him on 2.9.92 vide receipt No. 97/21454 for release of connection on priority basis. Period of more than 15 years has elapsed, but till date no demand notice has been issued. Opposite parties were approached by him many a times with the request to release the connection, but to no effect. Persons who had applied for release of tube well connections under general category after him and had not deposited the amount of Rs. 1,000/- and were not brought under Self Financing Scheme for release of connection on priority basis, have been released tube well connections by the opposite parties. One of them is Megh Raj S/o Hansraj, R/o Kotha Guru. His number of application was 7212 dated 16.2.90. Hence, there is discrimination in releasing tube well connections ignoring seniority. Due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has undergone financial loss, physical and mental agony for which he deserves compensation. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and complainant is not consumer. On merits, they admit that complainant had applied for release of tube well connection. A sum of Rs. 160/- was deposited vide receipt No.93/129164 dated 6.2.90. SFS was floated vide circular No. 29/92. Complainant had opted for this scheme after depositing Rs. 1,000/- on 2.9.92. In clause No. 8, sub para No. (i) of this scheme, it has been mentioned that applicants who had opted earlier under SFS upto 31.1.91 against the applications registered upto 30.11.90, should be issued demand notice in the first instance under SFS. Complainant had opted for this scheme by way of depositing Rs. 1,000/- on 2.9.92. Hence, his case does not fall within the period mentioned in circular No. 29/92. After that circulars No. 27/93, 42/96 and 36/2001 were issued. Demand notice was not issued to the complainant as his case does not fall within the terms and conditions of these circulars. Letters have been issued to the Higher Authorities, Patiala, for giving sanction for issuing demand notices to those applicants who had applied for connection and had opted SFS. Separate seniority list was prepared under the general category and for those who had applied under SFS. Connections to those persons who had applied under general category were issued when their turn came for release of demand notice and they had complied its terms and conditions. Megh Raj had applied under general category and connection has been rightly issued. Demand notices were issued as per rules and regulations of the Board without any discrimination. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopies of payment receipts (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of application (Ex. C-4) and photocopy of commercial circular No. 31/90 (Ex. C-5).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Jasbir Singh, S.D.O. (Ex. R-1), photocopy of list of application under SFS 1992 (Ex. R-2), photocopy of memo dated 29.5.07 (Ex R-3), photocopy of memo dated 21.6.07 (Ex. R-4) and photocopy of memo dated 12.7.07 have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite parties.<br /> 7. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that complainant had applied for release of tube well connection against payment of Rs. 160.- vide receipt No. 93/129164 dated 6.2.90, copy of which is Ex. C-3. Opposite parties had floated new scheme known as SFS for release of tube well connections against deposit of Rs. 200/- per BHP with minimum of Rs. 1,000/-. Complainant had opted for this scheme by depositing Rs. 1,000/- on 2.9.92 vide receipt copy of which is Ex. C-2. One Megh Raj had applied under general category on 16.2.90. Complainant before opting SFS had deposited fee of Rs. 160/- for tube well connection in 6.2.90. Electricity connection has been released to Megh Raj after issuing demand notice. In the case of the complainant, even demand notice has not been issued although he had opted SFS.<br /> 8. Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant was assured that electricity connection would be released on priority basis. Accordingly, he opted for connection under SFS on 2.9.92. Despite this, even demand notice has not been issued to him. To the contrary, connection has been released to Megh Raj although his application was registered on 16.2.90 under general category. Discrimination has been done in the case of the complainant in not releasing demand notice and the electricity connection .<br /> 9. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that complainant had opted electricity connection under SFS as per commercial circular No. 29/92. His case was not covered under commercial circulars No. 29/92, 27/93, 42/96 and 36/2001 for release of demand notice. Now sanction from the Higher Authorities has been obtained for issuing the demand notice to the complainant on this turn. Hence, there is no discrimination with him.<br /> 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments.<br /> 11. Complainant in his affidavit Ex. C-1 reiterates his version in the complaint. No doubt, as is clear from copy Ex. C-5 of the commercial circular No. 31/90 SFS could be opted upto 31.7.90. According to commercial circular No. 29/92, option for this scheme could be given by the eligible tube well applicants upto 31.10.92. Accordingly, complainant opted this scheme on 2.9.92 by way of depositing Rs. 1,000/-. No doubt under Clause d(ii) of commercial circular No. 29/92, it has been mentioned that “demand notices to the applicants who had registered their applications upto 31.3.91 and are now opting for this scheme shall be subsequently issued after incorporating the charges as per para (c) above”. From this it cannot be said that applicants who got their applications registered upto 31.3.91 could not be issued demand notices for tube well connection for an indefinite period. Demand notices were required to be issued to them within reasonable time. No doubt opposite parties have placed on record copy of the list of the applications under SFS 1992 which is Ex. R-2 and in it name of the complainant figures at Sr. No. 57. Opposite parties admit that demand notice was issued to Megh Raj and electricity connection has also been released to him under general category. His date of application was 16.2.90. As mentioned above, complainant applied for tube connection on 06.02.90. He opted for priority category under SFS on the basis of application registered on 6.2.90. In this case more than 15 years have passed after the complainant moved for release of tube well connection to him but no demand notice has been issued although he opted for priority category and deposited the amount prescribed by the opposite parties. To the contrary person who applied under general category subsequent to the complainant has been released tube well connection after issuance of the demand notice. Further deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved from the copies of the letters Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-5. Ex. R-5 is the copy of the letter dated 12.7.07 of Dy. Director/Sales-V for Chief Engineer/Commercial, PSEB, Patiala to the Chief Engineer/D.S. West, P.S.E.B. Bathinda. According to it all the applications registered under SFS category upto 31.3.90 should have been issued demand notice during the last year alongwith the general category applicants as per their seniority based on registration of applications. Concerned officials of the opposite parties have not issued demand notice to the complainant even under the general category although his application was registered on 6.2.90. Action against the defaulting officer/officials has been recommended by the Board as is evident from Ex. R-5, Ex. R-3 and Ex. R-4. Thus, conclusion is that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved. <br /> 2. Now the questions arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Direction deserve to be given to the opposite parties to issue demand notice to the complainant for tube well connection. Opposite parties have not established upto which seniority number demand notices have been issued and electricity connections have been released . Further direction deserves to be given that after the compliance of the demand notice is made by the complainant, connection be released to him within two months which in our view is a reasonable time. Due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties and deficiency in service on their part, complainant must have undergone financial loss, mental and physical agony. Opposite parties are using the amount deposited by the complainant to his detriment without giving anything in return to him. Hence, we find it a fit case where direction be given to the opposite parties to pay reasonable compensation which we assess as Rs. 5,000/- in this case.<br /> 3. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 4. 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) Issue demand notice to the complainant for tube well electricity connection applied for by him within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order allowing him to make compliance of it within one month thereafter. <br /> ii) Release tube well electricity connection to him within two months from the date of compliance of the terms and conditions of the demand notice.<br /> iii) Pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant 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) of the Act would carry interest @9% P.A. till payment.<br /> 12. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 18-09-2007 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member