DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 153 of 08.06.2007<br /> Decided on : 22-10-2007 <br /> <br /> Ranbir Singh alias Randhir Singh S/o Balwant 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.Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Divisional Office, Operation, Bhagta Bhai Ka through its Sub Divisional Officer<br /> 3.The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Punjab State Electricity Board, 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. Jasbir 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 'Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to release him electricity connection for running tube well at the proposed site; pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages due to non-release of this connection to him; Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental tension agony and loss of physical health besides Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant as emerges from the complaint itself may be stated as under :<br /> He owns agricultural land in the area of Village Kotha Guru, Tehsil. Phul, Distt. Bathinda. Canal water of his turn for the irrigation of his land is inadequate. He was unable to get maximum yield from his land. Electricity connection of 5 B.H.P. was applied for by him on 10.12.04. A fee of Rs. 1,000/- was deposited vide receipt No. 347 dated 10.12.04 with the opposite parties. Electricity connection was not released. He again applied for electricity connection of 5 BHP on priority basis under Discretionary Quota of the Chairman vide application dated 5.4.06. Application for release of tube well connection was sanctioned by the Chairman of Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala under his Discretionary Quota. This fact was conveyed to opposite party No. 3 by the office of Chief Engineer, Commercial Sales, The Mall, Patiala vide memo No. 93536/540 TW Bathinda dated 29.12.06. After the issuance of this letter, a sum of Rs. 11,000/- was deposited as security vide receipt No. 199 dated 19.1.07 with the opposite parties on their assurance that tube well connection on priority basis could be released at the earliest. He alleges that due to vindictive attitude of the opposite parties, no letter has been issued to him for release of connection. Despite his repeated requests, nothing has been done. Opposite parties were required to release electricity connection within 2-3 months after deposit of the security amount, but they are postponing the matter on one pretext or the other although he is ready and willing to deposit the due amount, if any. He was compelled to make bore for connection purposes which is being run with diesel engine. He has to incur extra expenditure on costly diesel and has suffered financial loss of Rs. 50,000/- per season. He is unable to get full yield from the fields due to lack of proper irrigation facility. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file it; he has not come with clean hands and he does not fall within the provisions of the Act. They admit that complainant had applied for tube well connection for 5 BHP on 10.12.04. Requisite amount was deposited with the application. No demand notice has been issued to him as more applications of other persons prior to him are pending. He had applied for electricity connection of 5 BH.P. on priority basis in Discretionary Quota of Chairman. Memo in question was issued. Complainant has deposited Rs. 11,000/- for getting connection of 5 BH.P. on priority basis in Discretionary Quota of the Chairman. No demand notice has been issued to him as more applications are pending which were received prior to his application under Discretionary Quota. Name of the complainant figures at Sr. No. 28 in the priority/seniority list. Uptill today demand notice have been issued till Sr. No. 12. Letter dated 26.3.07 has been issued by Chief Engineer for not releasing connection/demand notice to the applicants who have been allowed connections under Discretionary Quota w.e.f. 26.3.07. There are no rules and regulations of the Board to issue connection within 2-3 months from the date of deposit. They deny deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and 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), copy of Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of letter dated 29.12.06 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of receipt dated 19.1.07 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of letter dated 29.12.06 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of letter Endorsement No. 18672 ( Ex. C-6) and photocopies of Commercial Circulars No. 13/2007 and 44/07 (Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8) respectively. <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 pending applications under Chairman Quota (Ex. R-2), photocopy of list of pending test reports and released connections under Chairman Quota (Ex. R-3) and photocopy of list of applications under general category (Ex. R-4) 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 are the undisputed facts in this case. They are that complainant had applied for getting 5 BHP electricity connection for tube well purposes in Discretionary Quota of the Chairman. Connection was sanctioned. Dy Director/Sales-V issued letter dated 29.12.06. In compliance of the letter, a sum of Rs. 11,000/- has been deposited by the complainant on 19.1.07 vide receipt, copy of which is Ex. C-4. So far demand notice has not been issued for release of connection.<br /> 8. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Jasbir Singh, learned counsel for the complainant are that opposite parties were required to release the electricity connection to the complainant within 2-3 months after the amount has been deposited by the complainant, but they are postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. He is still ready and willing to deposit the amount, if any. There is no dearth of electricity for releasing AP tube well connections as opposite parties have issued commercial circular No. 44/07 for release of tube well connection on priority under OYT scheme and copy of this commercial circular is Ex. C-8. Moreover, Chairman's Discretionary Quota has been re-converted from the quota of Hon'ble Chief Minister to official quota of Chairman vide Commercial Circular No. 33/2007.<br /> 9. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite parties vociferously argued that the name of the complainant figures at Sl. No.28 in the seniority list prepared on the basis of the applications under Chairman Quota and copy of the same is Ex. R-2. Demand notices to 12 persons have been issued so far under the Chairman quota as is evident from Ex. R-3. On 26.3.07, Chief Engineer Commercial of Punjab State Electricity Board has issued letter for not issuing the demand notices to the applicants who have been allowed connections under Discretionary quota w.e.f. 26.3.07. After that another letter dated 4.7.07 was issued for not issuing demand notices after 26.3.07 to the applicants who have applied under Discretionary quota of the Chairman and as such, opposite parties are unable to issue the demand notice and to issue the connection to the complainant. Vide Commercial Circular No. 13/2007, Chairman Discretionary quota has been converted as Discretionary quota of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Punjab and copy of this Commercial Circular has been placed on record by the complainant himself as Ex. C-7.<br /> 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments.<br /> 11. As per the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties and their written submissions, their stance is that they are unable to issue the demand notice and to release the connection to the complainant in view of the letters dated 26.3.07 and 4.7.07. It is not the case of the opposite parties that Chairman could not sanction the release of tube well connection to the complainant or he was incompetent. In other words, tube well connection has been allowed to the complainant on priority basis by the competent authority vide letter dated 29.12.06. Complainant deposited Rs. 11,000/- on 19.1.07 i.e. much prior to the issuance of letter dated 26.3.07 and 4.7.07. In our view these letters can have no retrospective effect. Vide letter dated 29.12.06, it has been made clear that priority shall be admissible upto to the stage of release of connection as per earlier guidelines. No Material has been brought before us that earlier guidelines on the basis of which priority has been held admissible to the complainant upto the stage of release of connection have been withdrawn and that too with retrospective effect. Board is releasing tube well connections on priority basis under OYT scheme as well as is clear from Ex. C-8. Release of tube well connection under OYT has not been made retrospective. Rather it has been made operative from the date of issuance of the circular i.e. 20.8.07. In such a situation, principle of first come first serve would apply in the case of the complainant. From this contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that there is no dearth of electricity for release of electricity connection even under Chairman quota appears well founded. Complainant is not at fault. Stand taken by the opposite parties that they are unable to issue demand notice and release connection is certainly arbitrary. Board has got deposited the amount on the basis of the legal order of the competent authority for release of electricity connection for tube well purpose to the complainant on priority basis. It is using the amount of the complainant to his detriment without any return to him and now they are taking the plea that they are unable to issue the demand notice and release the connection. Even the Discretionary quota of Hon'ble Chief Minister, Punjab, has been re-converted as Discretionary quota of Chairman of the Board vide Commercial Circular No. 33 of 2007 dated 5.7.07. Case of the complainant gets strengthened from this Commercial Circular because Discretionary quota of the Chairman is still in vogue. Despite all this, opposite parties are denying even the issuance of the demand notice and release of connection to the complainant. In our view, complainant is entitled to the issuance of the demand notice and release of connection on the basis of the sanction accorded by the Chairman, P.S.E.B. to him for tube well connection on priority basis at his turn. The denial of demand notice and release of connection to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 12. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Opposite parties have already issued demand notices/connections to 12 persons under the Chairman Discretionary quota as is clear from Ex. R-3. Name of the complainant in the seniority list is at 28 Opposite parties are to issue demand notices and thereafter release the connections in this category. Accordingly, opposite parties are to issue demand notice and release electricity connection for tube well purposes under this category as per seniority of the complainant under Chairman Discretionary quota. Hence direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to issue demand notice to the complainant for tube well connection keeping in view his seniority under Discretionary quota of the Chairman of the Board on the basis of sanction for tube well connection accorded to him under this category by the Chairman. Complainant is craving for damages/financial loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that he is unable to yield full produce from his agricultural land due to improper irrigation facility and that he is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- for mental tension, agony and loss of physical health. In our view, there is no case to allow damages/financial loss and compensation as name of the complainant in the seniority list is at 28 and as per opposite parties demand notices only upto Sr. No. 12 have been issued and there is no evidence of discrimination in this case to the effect that opposite parties have issued demand notices to some other persons skipping the seniority of the complainant.<br /> 13. In the result, complaint is partly 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 connection applied for by him as per his seniority after demand notices to the persons senior to him under Discretionary quota of the chairman are issued, on the basis of sanction accorded to him by the Chairman for tube well connection under this category..<br /> ii)Release tube well connection applied for by the complainant within 2 months after the compliance of the demand notice issued to him, is made by him.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 22-10--2007 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />