Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh. M.S.Brar counsel for opposite parties.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> DHARAM SINGH PRESIDENT<br /> Ranjit Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to immediately release the electric tubewell connection of the complainant and to pay Rs.70000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and loss of paddy crop and to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he has applied for electric tubewell connection by depositing the required fee with the PSEB for his 7-1/2 acres of agricultural land. Thereafter the opposite party No. 2 issued a demand notice to the complainant and in compliance of the demand notice the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.15,500/- vide B.A. 16 No. 71/88999 dated 6/4/2005 and the complainant was told that his seniority no. is 11, so the complainant has become the consumer of the opposite parties. The estimate was prepared by J.E. Sher Bahadur Singh after inspecting the site and said JE received Rs.1000/- as how own fee and assured that the estimate will be passed in December 2005 and he will withdraw the poles from the store for release of connection but from January 2006 to March 2006 the estimate was not got passed by J.E. Sher Bahadur Singh and on repeated requests of the complainant said JE took the complainant with him to the office of Senior Executive Engineer and got the complainant sitting in Peon room and asked that as the money has been paid less so the Xen is not passing the estimate and then received Rs.500/- more from the complainant and as such he got passed the estimate on 21/4/2006 but thereafter said JE kept the matter linger on with the pretext that the complainant should pay Rs.20000/- as lump sum for poles, wires and transformer as illegal gratification but the complainant was unable to pay such a huge amount to said JE as the matter was settled for Rs.7000/- and the complainant paid Rs.3500/- to the said JE on 7/6/2006 but inspite of all this the connection of the complainant was not released by the opposite parties. He has also moved an application to this effect to Technical Audit PSEB Patiala and other officers of PSEB and at this the Addl. Superintending Engineer, Technical Audit required an affidavit from the complainant which was submitted by the complainant on 5/8/2006 in this respect but uptill now no action has been taken. The complainant has came to know that the opposite parties have released the connections of the Junior applicants but the connection of the complainant has been withheld by the opposite parties malafidely and intentionally. The complainant has requested the opposite parties so many times to release the connection but the opposite party No. 2 at first kept the matter linger on with one pretext or the other and now has refused to release the connection which amounts to clear cut deficiency in service. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension, harassment, inconvenience and loss of his agriculture produce so he claims a sum of Rs.70000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 1-9-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. M.S.Brar Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. He has suppressed the material facts. Complainant has already filed a complaint against Sher Bahadur Singh AJE working under opposite party No. 2 containing serious allegations of alleged illegal gratification before the Senior Executive Engineer Technical Audit, PSEB, Patiala which has been thoroughly investigated by the said agency. So the present complaint may be dismissed. The present complaint is bad on account of non joinder of necessary parties. On merits the opposite parties averred that the complainant has not yet become consumer of the opposite parties. It is correct that estimate for giving connection to the complainant was prepared by Sher Bahadur Singh AJE but it is wrong that the said JE received Rs.1000/- as illegal gratification. Necessary estimate for release of tubewell connection was sanctioned by Senior Xen operation division, Kotkapura vide his memo No. 5522 dated 28/4/2006. After that as per instructions of the board revised seniority was to be prepared for giving connections to the applicants who have submitted their test reports against the applications registered up to 31/3/1988 and the application of the complainant was of dated 26/3/1990 with the result that the seniority of the complainant for release of tubewell connection was revised and he was placed junior to the applicants who have submitted their test reports against their applications registered up to 31/3/1988. In this way material for release of connection to the complainant could not be drawn as the material is issued from the store strictly as per seniority prepared on the basis of the revised instructions of the board. It is totally wrong that connections of the junior applicants have been released. No such connection to any applicant junior to the complainant has been released. The connections are being released strictly as per seniority of the applicants as per instructions of the PSEB from time to time. The connection of the complainant is to be released as per his seniority as per instructions of the board. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant is not entitled for any compensation nor any amount of litigation expenses. So the complaint may be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of receipt No. 88999 dated 6/4/2005 Ex.C-2, copy of application Ex.C-3, copy of affidavit dated 5/8/2006 Ex.C-4, copies of courier receipts Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8, lists of connections of tubewells Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-14 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavits of Sadhu Singh AEE Sub urban Sub Division PSEB Kotkapura Ex.R-1, store requisition Ex.R-2, statement of Sher Bahadur Singh JE before Technical Audit Ex.R-3, affidavit of Sher Bahadur Singh AJE PSEB Kotkapura Ex.R-4, copy of estimate attested Ex.R-5, copy of attested I.O. dated 26/3/90 Ex.R-6, attested copy of seniority list Ex.R-7, attested copy of test report Ex.R-8, attested copy of seniority list Ex.R-9, attested copy of store requisition Ex.R-10 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite parties have illegally withheld release of electric connection though the opposite parties have release electric connections to the applicants who are juniors to the complainant. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the turn of the complainant so far has not matured and no person junior to the complainant has been released electric connection by the opposite parties. <br /> 10. As per commercial circular 25/2006, commercial circular 61/2006, commercial circular 35/2004 and commercial circular 27/2005 as well as commercial circular 32/2005 though the opposite parties may not have been able to prepare seniority list in accordance with law but certainly the turn of the complainant for release of electric connection as per seniority list Ex.R-7, general category list Ex.R-9 the turn for release of electric connection in favour of the complainant so far has not matured. Learned counsel for the complainant could not point out if from the list Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-14 with regard to release of electric connections if any one was junior to the complainant. Though the demand notice have been served to the complainant and complainant has submitted test report still as per list Ex.R-7 there are so many other persons who have submitted applications in 1988 and have submitted test reports. In this list complainant has been shown at Serial No. 85. <br /> 11. From the above noted facts and circumstances it is made out that turn of the complainant appears to have not been bypassed by the opposite parties. However opposite parties may prepare fresh seniority list on the basis of general category applicants, priority list applicants and other applicants, so that each and every one is given electric connection as and when his turn is matured. So it is held that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties to be provided to the complainant. So the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. However dismissal of this complaint shall not effect already existing seniority or seniority to be prepared afresh in accordance with law by the opposite parties. Efforts by the opposite parties are ordered to be made to redress the grievances of the complainant as soon as possible within the limits of rules and regulations. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 2/8/2007<br /> <br />