DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 158 of 13.6.2007<br /> Decided on : 6.11.2007 <br /> <br /> Smt. Sarabjit Kaur W/o Sh. Jagwant Singh, VPO Ganga, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1. The Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. SE, 'DS' Circle, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bathinda.<br /> 3. ASE, 'DS Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bhagta Bhaika.<br /> 4. ASE, 'DS Division, Punjab State Elecy. Board, Bathinda.<br /> 5. AE/AEE, Punjab State Elecy. Board, Sub Division, Goniana<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 /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Ganesh Dutt Sharma, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant is physically handicapped. As per instructions of the PSEB (Here-in-after referred to as the Board) and regulation No. 13.6.7 of Electricity Supply Regulations, 1999, Board was to provide tubewell connections to the eligible handicapped persons who had applied under this category on priority basis. Complainant had applied for such connection of 5 BHP with opposite party No. 5. A sum of Rs. 360/- was deposited vide BA-16 No. 552/126426 dated 14.12.99/ Requisite formalities were completed including the submission of A & A form and copy of the revenue record (Fard of land) etc. Application was registered at Sr. No. 22668. As per instructions issued vide Commercial Circular No. 78/2001, all the applications registered upto 31.8.2001 under this quota were to be processed for issuance of demand notices and release of connections under Self Financing Scheme. Opposite party No. 5 had visited the site and prepared estimate for release of connection. After expiry of about five months from the issuance of the above mentioned circular, her case was submitted to the Senior Executive Engineer, DS, Bathinda by opposite party No. 5 vide office memo No. 1948 dated 26.4.2002. No further action was taken. She incurred huge expenditure (Approximately Rs.1,00,000/-) for digging well and its construction, digging of bore, constructing of one room, purchasing pipes and motor etc. Demand notice was not issued by opposite party No.5. Her visits to opposite party No. 5 for getting the needful proved futile. It is added by her that she has 8 Kanals and 5 Marlas of land. She has suffered loss of Rs. 50,000/- due to the non release of the electricity connection. An application was submitted by her to Senior Executive Engineer, Bhagta Bhaika on 17.11.2006. It was forwarded by him to opposite party No. 5 for necessary action, but no action was taken. She brought this matter to the notice of Chairman of the Board, opposite party No. 2 and others, but to no effect. In response to the letter of S.E, Senior Executive Engineer, Bhagta replied that applications registered upto 31.8.2001 were required to be issued demand notices, but in this case, it has not been issued. She alleges deficiency in services. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been filed seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to release electricity connection in her favour; pay Rs. 90,000/- as damages for mental, physical and financial sufferings, besides litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no cause of action; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complaint is false and fictitious; complainant is not consumer and there is no deficiency in service on their part. They admit that complainant had applied for tubewell connection of 5 BHP on 14.12.1999. As per latest instructions, Board has put restrictions since 22.4.2002 to release connections under handicapped category and as such, they are unable to release the connection. Besides the case of the complainant, there were eight more cases pending under this category with the office of opposite party No. 3. As per Commercial Circular No. 78/2001, demand notices were required to be issued to all the applicants, who had applied under this category upto 31.8.2001. As per record, demand notice could not be issued to the complainant and eight others. Responsibility of the officials, who did not issue the demand notices has been fixed. Show cause notices have been issued to them. Apart from this, it had transpired that complainant does not have land in her name and as such, demand notice could not be issued. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 3. In support of her allegations and averments in the complaint, Smt. Sarabjit Kaur complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopy of certificate regarding her physical disablement (Ex.C.2) , photocopy of payment receipt (Ex.C.3), photocopy of Commercial Circular No. 78/2001 (Ex.C.4), photocopies of memos No. 1948 & 1861(Ex.C.5 & Ex.C.11), photocopy of letter dated 17.11.2006 (Ex.C.6), photocopies of applications (Ex.C.7 & Ex.C.9), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex.C.8 & Ex.C.10), photographs (Ex.C.12 to Ex.C.14), photocopies of pages no. 47 & 50 of Sales Regulations (Ex.C.15) and copy of Jamabandi for the year 2001-02 (Ex.C.16 ).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. R/K. Goyal, AEE/AE, Operation Sub Division, Bathinda, photocopy of Commercial Circular No. 27/2002 (Ex.R.2), photocopies of endst. Nos. 6451/52 & 6449/50 dated 9.4.2007 (Ex.R.3 & Ex.R.4) and photocopy of list of physical handicapped applicants (Ex.R.5).<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the complainant.<br /> 6. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that complainant is physically handicapped. She had applied for tubewell connection of 5 BHP to the opposite parties under physical handicapped quota on 14.12.99. A sum of Rs. 360/- was deposited by her vide receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.3. As per Commercial Circular No. 78/2001 instructions were issued by the Board that the applications registered upto 31.8.2001 be processed for issuance of demand notices and release of connections under Self Financing Scheme. Copy of this Commercial Circular is Ex.C.4. Complainant moved applications to the various authorities, copies of which are Ex.C.6, Ex.C.7 and Ex.C.9, but nothing has been done till date. Sr. Executive Engineer wrote letter, copy of which is Ex.C.11, to the Superintending Engineer for taking action against some officials of the opposite parties for not making compliance of Commercial Circular No. 78/2001. He further apprised him that as per instructions dated 12.4.2002 of the Board, demand notice to the category of the complainant, cannot be issued.<br /> 7. Submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that opposite parties are taking action against the officials, who did not issue the demand notice to the complainant as per Commercial Circular No. 78/2001 and copies of the notices issued to S/Sh. Nathanial and Sham Lal are Ex.R.3 & Ex.R.4 respectively. Moreover, there are other such like applicants to whom demand notices could not be issued as is evident from Ex.R.5.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is crystal clear.<br /> 9. After considering arguments, we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the complainant. On the basis of Commercial Circular No. 78/2001, opposite parties were required to issue demand notice and release connection to the complainant as her application was registered on 14.12.99. This has not been done. Learned counsel for the opposite parties failed to show us that the instructions dated 12.4.2002 were made operative retrospectively. Right for getting demand notice issued and connection released accrued to the complainant on the basis of Commercial Circular No. 78/2001. We fail to understand as to how the grievances of the complainant regarding release of the connection would stand redressed with mere issuance of show cause notices to the defaulting officials of the Board. What ought to have been done by the opposite parties on the basis of Commercial Circular No. 78/2001 has not been done. Stance of the opposite parties that complainant does not own land is falsified from the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2001-02 which is Ex.C.16 according to which she is the owner of land. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is writ large.<br /> 10. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. As per our discussion made above, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to issue demand notice to the complainant for release of applied for tubewell connection and after its compliance is made, release tubewell connection to her. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused her mental and physical sufferings and financial loss for which she deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs.5,000/-.<br /> 11. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 12. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Issue demand notice to the complainant concerning tubewell connection of 5 BHP applied for by her within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> ( ii ) Release tubewell connection to the complainant within two months from the date of compliance of terms and conditions of the demand notice by her.<br /> ( iii ) Pay RS. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iv ) Compliance with regard to payment of costs and compensation be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment. <br /> 13. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 6.11.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br />