DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.283 of 4.10.2007<br /> Decided on : 3.1.2008 <br /> <br /> Ranjit Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh S/o Sh. Kaka Singh, R/o Village Kotha Guru, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. <br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary<br /> 2.S.D.O./A.E.E., Punjab State Electricity 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 /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, 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. Complainant is an Agriculturist. He is having about 18 Acres of land in the revenue limits of village Kotha Guru. Previously, this land was in possession of his grand father namely Sh. Kaka Singh, who had applied for tubewell connection of 7.5 BHP to opposite party No. 2 on 23.1.90. A sum of Rs. 470/- was deposited by him as security vide receipt No. 48, Book No. A-110827. Another sum of Rs. 6,500/- was deposited vide receipt No. 547, Book No. D-87376 dated 16.5.2006. He has since died. He (complainant) got the application transferred in his name by way of completing the requisite formalities. Opposite parties again got deposited a sum of Rs. 23,000/- from him vide receipt No. 478, Book No E-573 dated 18.5.2007 which included Rs. 22,500/- as security and Rs. 500/- as ACD charges. Assurance was given that the connection would be released at the earliest. Thereafter, opposite parties again directed him to deposit Rs. 880/- which were deposited with opposite party No. 2 vide receipt No. 429, Book No. D-85430 dated 29.3.2007. After completing formalities, opposite parties had prepared the estimate and issued demand notice. Requirements of demand notice were complied with. They were required to release the connection within a period of one month after compliance of the demand notice, but it has not been released. On making repeated requests by him, opposite parties issued installation order dated 8.6.2007 as disclosed by them. He was further told that connection would be released within week's time. They are putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. In these circumstances, instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to release him tubewell connection at the earliest; pay him Rs. 50,000/- on account of financial loss, mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and Rs. 5,500/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. 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 it; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and complainant is not consumer. They admit that grand father of the complainant had applied for tubewell connection of 7.5 BHP to opposite party No. 2 on 23.1.90 after depositing the security and the remaining amount of Rs.6,500/- was deposited by him for extension of the period for compliance of the demand notice. Application was got transferred by the complainant after complying the formalities. A sum of Rs. 23,000/- was deposited by him in compliance of the demand notice on 18.5.2007. Rs. 880/- were charged for the change of name from Kaka Singh to his name. Connection was applied under General Category. As per policy for releasing the connection, it is necessary that after releasing three tubewell connections under general category, one connection under priority category is to be released. Seniority number of the complainant is 29 without adjusting the names of those persons who had applied under priority category. Due to clerical mistake, installation order was issued for releasing the connection to the complainant. It was rejected on 16.6.2007 by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Bhagta Bhai Ka on the ground that his name does not come as per seniority list. Action is being taken against the concerned employee. Connection would be released to the complainant as per his seniority on availability of the material etc. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Ranjit Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.3), copy of Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 (Ex.C.2), photocopies of payment receipts (Ex.C.4 to Ex.C.7) and photocopy of installation order (Ex.C.8).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2) of S/Sh. Paramjit Singh, SDO and Darshan Singh, J.E respectively, photocopy of seniority list (Ex.R.3), photocopy of installation order (Ex.R.4) and photocopy of cancellation of installation order (Ex.R.5).<br /> 5. Mr. Aklia, learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant has completed the requisite formalities including the deposit of Rs. 23,000/- in compliance of the terms and conditions of the demand notice and copy of the receipt is Ex.C.6. Thereafter, installation order was issued on 8.6.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.8. Complainant was assured that connection would be released within a period of one week. Despite this, opposite parties have not released the connection till date.<br /> 6. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that there is no time limit for grant of connection. Name of the complainant in the seniority list figures at Sr. No. 29. Connection cannot be released to him out of turn. So far as installation order is concerned, it was issued due to clerical mistake and it has been rejected by the Assistant Executive Engineer on 16.6.2007 as is evident from Ex.R.4. Mere compliance of the terms and conditions of the demand notice does not entitle the complainant for release of connection.<br /> 7. We have considered the respective arguments. Time limit for grant of connection has been abolished as is evident from Regulation No. 24 of Electricity Supply Regulations (Amended/updated upto 31.12.2004). Admittedly demand notice was issued to the complainant. He has deposited Rs. 23,000/-. His name figures at Sr. No. 29 in the seniority list. He cannot be allowed tubewell connection till the connections are released to the persons who are senior to him. Despite this, a sum of Rs. 23,000/- has been got deposited from him and even installation order was issued. According to Electricity Supply Regulation No. 24, demand notices are to be issued very carefully taking all the circumstances in view. Contrary to it, demand notice was issued in this case to the complainant on account of which he has to deposit Rs. 23,000/- on 18.5.2007. Tubewell connection was applied for on 23.1.90. If connection could not or was not to be released within reasonable time, what was the necessity to issue demand notice and get Rs. 23,000/- deposited. Opposite parties are deriving benefit of the amount without any corresponding benefit to the complainant. Had the amount been with him, he could earn interest by way of depositing it. Period is not known when his turn would fall for release of connection as per seniority list. Hence, we have no hesitation in observing that opposite parties have issued the demand notice carelessly. All this amounts to deficiency in service on their part.<br /> 8. Latest view has been given in such like cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Zora Singh-2005 CTJ-1077 (Supreme Court (CP) and by Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab in Appeal No. 339 of 2005 decided on 22.3.2005 in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board & Another Vs. Chhota Singh.<br /> 9. Now question for determination is as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant in the facts and circumstances of this case. Complainant is waiting for the release of the connection after the amount of Rs. 23,000/- has been got deposited from him on 18.5.2007. Connection was applied on 23.1.90. Circumstances show harassment of the complainant. Prospective consumer cannot be made to suffer without any rhyme or reason. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant for which he deserves compensation from the opposite parties which we assess as Rs. 5,000/- under section 14(1)(d) of the Act. Apart from this, complainant is entitled to the directions given in the order of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in appeal No. 339 of 2005 referred to above.<br /> 10. 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 tubewell connection to the complainant as per his seniority.<br /> ( ii ) Refund Rs. 23,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of deposit i.e. 18.5.2007 till payment.<br /> ( iii ) Issue fresh demand notice to him when in the seniority list, copy of which is Ex.R.3, only five applicants senior to him remain for release of tubewell connections.<br /> ( iv ) Refund of Rs. 23,000/- alongwith interest as above and acceptance of the same by the complainant would not amount to cancellation of his application for tubewell connection.<br /> ( v ) Pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( vi ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order regarding payment of costs of the complaint and compensation of Rs. 5,000/-, failing which amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 11. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 3.1.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> 12.