DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/192/2020

Date of Institution : 08.09.2020

Date of Decision : 15.03.2022

Ujjagar Singh aged about 63 years son of Harchand Singh resident of Dhillon Patti, Thikriwala, Tehsil and District Barnala, Punjab. …Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Power Colony, Patiala, Through its Chief Engineer South Zone/Authorized Signatory.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Room Number 205, 2nd Floor Multi Storey Building, The Mall Road, Patiala H.O., Patiala-147001, Near Omaxe Mall, Near Shakti Sadan, Punjab, Through its Chairman/ Authorized Signatory.

3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Barnala Through its XEN/Authorized Signatory.

4. Punjab Power Corporation Limited, Office Assistant Engineer, Sub Divisional Mandal, Sanghera, Barnala through its SDO/AEE Authorized Signatory.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. SK Kotia Adv counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The complainant Ujjagar Singh filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant has applied for one agriculture electricity connection with the opposite party No. 3 by paying the fees. On 8.2.1990 the complainant applied for the agriculture general electricity connection for his agriculture land and paid for that to the opposite party No. 3 an amount of Rs. 120/- vide receipt No. 100. The opposite party No. 2 assured that they will issue the demand notice to issue the electricity connection to the complainant. After that complainant visited many times for the demand notice but every time complainant returned with assurance by opposite parties No. 3 and 4 that they will it at postal address of the complainant itself. The complainant waited for the year 2016 that opposite parties will issue and send demand notice to the complainant but with no result. So, the complainant moved an application on 11.8.2016 with opposite party No. 3 for issuing the demand notice and motor connection. The opposite party No. 3 forwarded the said application with the opposite party No. 4 who replied vide letter dated 30.8.2016 with the report that they have issued the general motor connection demand notice to the complainant on 30.3.2001 but there is cutting of the name of complainant in service register of opposite parties and test report of the complainant is also not submitted and motor connection has not been issued in favour of the complainant. 

3. It is further alleged that on 13.10.2016 opposite party No. 4 again issued the duplicate demand notice to the complainant. The opposite party No. 3 agreed to issue the motor connection to the complainant but directed the complainant to move an application to opposite party No. 4 for extension of the time of the said demand notice and complete certain more formalities. Then opposite party No. 4 forwarded the said application alongwith application to issue the motor connection to the opposite party No. 3 with report that this application is pending and not any motor connection is issued against the said application. The complainant provided all the details to opposite party No. 4 who forwarded the same to opposite party No. 3 on 3.2.2020. The complainant completed all the formalities. But the opposite party No. 3 instead of issuing the motor connection denied to extend the period of demand notice and issue the motor connection. Thereafter, the complainant many times approached the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 for motor connection but to no effect and if opposite parties were not able to issue the motor connection then why they directed the complainant to complete the formalities and harassed him from the year 2016 to 2020, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties be directed to issue motor connection in favour of the complainant and any other relevant formality if any needed should be completed by the opposite parties.     

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

4. The opposite parties filed written reply taking legal objections on the grounds that the head office of opposite parties issued Commercial Circular No. 5/2020 vide memo dated 10.2.2020 vide which the period of revival of cancelled application and extension in the period of demand notice for AP connections has been limited to ten years from the date of expiry of original demand notice period. The present complaint is not maintainable and bad for mis joinder of necessary parties. The demand notice to the application of the complainant was issued on 30.3.2001 but complainant have not comply the demand notice. The complainant submitted an affidavit dated 9.10.2019 and undertaking dated 21.11.2019 that the opposite parties have issued demand notice dated 30.3.2001 to the complainant but due to some avoidable circumstances he failed to comply the same. However, the complainant submitted application on 6.10.2016 that he has not issued any demand notice against his application under General Category. The statement of complainant is contradictory so he has no right to file the present complaint. 

5. On merits, the opposite parties submitted the same submissions as in the legal objections so there is no need to repeat the same. However, it is submitted that the old case of the complainant was not traced so that a new duplicate case will be prepared as per old record of the PSPCL and verified all the particulars are same but the name of the father of the complainant has entered incorrect and corrected the same as per application of the complainant which entered due to clerical mistale. The opposite parties issued duplicate demand notice on 13.10.2016 and forwarded the case for extension period of notice to the higher authority up to 31.3.2017. The higher authority raised some objections vide memo dated 15.5.2019 and after obtaining the required documents the said case was again forwarded to the higher authority. But higher authority raised some queries vide letter dated 1.10.2019 and after completing the formalities the case was again sent to the competent authority. But Senior Executive Engineer issued letter dated 9.1.2020 with some queries for extension of period of demand notice of complainant and after completing the formalities the same was again sent to competent authority vide letter dated 3.2.2020. Further, as per circular mentioned in legal objections the complainant was duly intimated vide letter dated 25.2.2020 issued by Supdt. Engineer, Barnala and letter dated 4.3.2020 issued by Assistant Engineer, Distribution Sub Division, Sanghera but complainant concealed the said letters. Lastly, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of receipt No. 100 Ex.C-2, copy of letter dated 11.8.2016 Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 30.8.2016 Ex.C-4, copy of duplicate demand notice Ex.C-5, copy of limitation increase proforma Ex.C-6, copy of letter dated 1.10.2019 Ex.C-7, copy of affidavit of Ujjagar Singh dated 9.10.2019 Ex.C-8, copy of letter dated 9.1.2020 Ex.C-9, copy of affidavit of Ujjagar Singh dated 31.1.2020 Ex.C-10, copy of letter dated 3.2.2020 Ex.C-11, copy of letter dated 25.2.2020 Ex.C-12, copy of letter dated 4.3.2020 Ex.C-13, copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C-14 and closed the evidence.

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties  tendered in evidence affidavit of Gopal Krishan Ex.OPs-1, copy of letter dated 4.3.2020 Ex.OPs-2, copy of letter dated 25.2.2020 Ex.OPs-3, copy of letter dated 3.2.2020 Ex.OPs-4, copy of undertaking of Ujjagar Singh Ex.OPs-5, copy of demand notice dated 30.3.2001 Ex.OPs-6, copy of affidavit dated 9.10.2019 Ex.OPs-7, copy of letter dated 6.10.2016 Ex.OPs-8, copy of application Ex.OPs-9, copy of affidavit dated 13.3.2019 Ex.OPs-10 and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the parties.

9. The complainant applied for AP connection for his agriculture land on 8.2.1990 after paying the requisite fee as per PSEB/ PSPCL record. Demand notice for AP connection was issued to the complainant on 30.3.2001 but due to some unavoidable circumstances the complainant could not do the compliance of the demand notice within the stipulated period. The complainant approached PSPCL in the year 2016 for the issuance of duplicate demand notice which was issued to the complainant on 13.10.2016. The complainant moved an application for the extension of the time period in the above said demand notice but this period could not be extend due to some departmental formalities.

10. In the year 2020 PSPCL amended the rules for the extension of time period of demand notice in case of AP connections. As per amendment the period of revival of cancelled application and extension in the period of demand notice for AP connections has been limited to ten years from the date of expiry of original demand notice period. Taking plea of the above amendment the opposite parties cancelled the application of the complainant. 

11. The complainant had moved the application for the extension of time period in the above said demand notice in the year 2016 but the opposite parties linger on the matter from 2016 to 2020 in the name of completion of formalities. This is a case of clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

12. In view of the above said discussion, present complaint is partly allowed the opposite parties are directed to extend the demand notice period by giving sufficient time to the complainant to complete the formalities and after completion of all the formalities the AP connection be released to the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 3,300/- on account of litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. All the parties are jointly and severally liable to comply with the above mentioned order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        15th Day of March 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member