DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 210 of 23.07.2007<br /> Decided on : 20-11-2007 <br /> <br /> Nirmal Singh S/o Harbans Singh, aged about 50 years 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.A.E.E./S.D.O, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Bhagta 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. Ashok Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. O.N.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; pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss to his crop due to non-release of connection within reasonable period; Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony and Rs. 5,000/- as costs 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 revenue limits of Village Kotha Guru. He was in need of tube well connection for the purpose of irrigation of his land. He had applied for tube well connection of 5 B.H.P. on priority basis under Discretionary Quota of the Chairman of P.S.E.B. His application for release of tube well connection was considered and sanctioned by the Chairman. Dy. Director/Sales-V P.S.E.B. Patiala, had issued letter to Superintending Engineer/ O.P Circle, PSEB, Bathinda dated 29.12.06 regarding release of tube well connection on priority basis to the complainant subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in it. Copy of this letter was addressed to the complainant. After issuance of letter, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was got deposited from the complainant vide receipt No. 86091/193 dated 18.01.07 for issuing the connection. It is averred by him that tube well connection was to be released within one month from the date of deposit of the amount/compliance of the demand notice, but connection has not so far been released. Opposite parties are adopting pick and choose method. They are ignoring the seniority list and are releasing the connections to their own persons by way superseding him. Connections are being released to the persons who are junior to him in the seniority list. Act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to violation of bye-laws. Opposite parties have already issued connections to Dharam Singh S/o Bhag Singh of Village Marhi, Block Nathana and Rajinder Singh S/o Lakh Pat Rai of Village Jalal, Tehsil Phul and to many others. They are bent upon for releasing more connections to some other consumers by ignoring the seniority. When protest was raised by him, officials of opposite party No. 2 raised illegal demand of Rs. 10,000/- for early release of the connection.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, 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; he has not come with clean hands and he does not fall under the definition of consumer as defined in the Act. On merits, they admit that complainant had got sanctioned tube well connection under Chairman Quota on priority basis. It was decided to release one connection to him. Intimation was given to the Superintending Engineer, O.P Circle, Bathinda vide letter dated 29.12.06. They deny that there are rules and regulations that Board is to release tube well connection within one month after compliance of the demand notice. Till today, no demand notice has been issued. They have prepared seniority list. Name of the complainant in the seniority list is at Sl. No. 15. There are 14 persons who are seniors to the complainant in the seniority. There were 31 applications under the Chairman Quota for release of tube well connection. Till today, 12 connections have been issued and 19 applications are pending. They deny that illegal demand of Rs. 10,000/- was raised by any official. Connection would be released as per rules and regulations. Letter dated 26.3.07 was issued by Chief Engineer for not issuing connections/demand notices to the applicants, who have been allowed connections under Discretionary Quota of the Chairman with cumulative effect w.e.f. 26.3.07. Hence, demand notice has not been issued to the complainant. They deny remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-9), photocopy of list of pending applications under Chairman Quota (Ex. C-2), photocopy of list of pending test reports and issued connections (Ex. C-3), photocopy of memo endorsement dated 29.12.06 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of memo No. 94838 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of application dated 20.8.07 (Ex. C-6), photocopy of Memo No. 29094 (Ex. C-7) and photocopy of application dated 23.5.07 ( Ex. C-8). <br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Paramjit Singh S.D.O. (Ex. R-1) has been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record. <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 had issued letter dated 29.12.06, copy of which is Ex. C-4. In compliance of the letter, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been deposited by the complainant on 18.1.07.<br /> 8. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant are that opposite parties were required to release the electricity connection to the complainant within one month after deposit of the amount by him but they are postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. They are adopting pick and choose method and are ignoring the seniority list by way of releasing tube well connection to their own men. He further submitted that Director/Sales-I has issued Memo No. 1396/140/1/Ch. Priority Quota dated 15.10.07 to C.E/Commercial, P.S.E.B. Patiala according to which matter has been reviewed and it has been decided that demand notices be issued to all the applicants who registered their applications under Chairman's Priority Quota. Despite the issuance of this letter, neither demand notice nor connection has been issued. To support his submissions, he placed reliance on the copies of the documents Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-8. <br /> 9. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehementally argued that the name of the complainant figures at Sl. No.15 in the seniority list prepared on the basis of the applications under Chairman Quota as is evident from the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Paramjit Singh, S.D.O. Till today 12 connections have been issued and 19 applications are pending under this Quota as is evident from Ex. C-2. 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.<br /> 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments.<br /> 11. As per the submissions of the learned counsel for the opposite parties 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. 10,000/- on 18.1.07 i.e. much prior to the issuance of letters 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. Principle of first come first served would apply in the case of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has shown us the letter dated 15.10.07 according to which matter has been reviewed by the Board and it has been decided that demand notices may be issued to all the applicants who registered their applications under Chairman's Priority Quota before 26.3.07. Complainant is not at fault. Stand taken by the opposite parties in not issuing the demand notice and releasing the connection to the complainant 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. They are using the amount of the complainant to his detriment without anything in return to him. 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's Discretionary quota as is clear from Ex. C-3. Name of the complainant in the seniority list of the pending applications under Chairman's Discretionary Quota figures at Sl. No. 15 as is clear from Ex. C-2. Opposite parties are to issue demand notices and thereafter release the connections under this category. Accordingly, they are to issue demand notice and release electricity connection for tube well purposes under this category as per seniority of the complainant under Chairman's 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 this quota and thereafter to release electricity connection for tube well. Complainant is craving for damages/financial loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that he is suffering loss due to non-release of the tube well connection and that he is entitled to Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment.. In our view, there is no case to allow damages/financial loss and compensation as name of the complainant in the seniority list in the pending list under Chairman's Quota is at Sl. No. 15 as is clear from Ex. C-2 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. So far as Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-8 are concerned, they are neither demand notices nor the orders according to which tube well connections have been released.<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 on the basis of sanction accorded to him by the Chairman after demand notices to the persons senior to him under Discretionary quota of the chairman are issued.<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 /> 20-11--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 />