| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 247 of 4-8-2022 Decided on : 28-09-2023 Balkaur Singh age about 35 years s/o Sukhmander Singh R/o village Tarkhan Wala, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo Distt. Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala. The Assistant Executive Engineer (DS), Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Sh. R.L Mittal, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. B.S Brar, Advocate. ORDER R.L Mittal, President The complainant Balkaur Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is small farmer and is owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 27 Kanals 18 Marlas, as per jamabandi for the year 2019-20 situated at village Tarkhan Wala, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo Distt. Bathinda. The complainant had applied for a motor connection/ tube-well connection 7.5 BHP on under chairman discretionary quota on priority basis for irrigation of his agricultural land with opposite parties and thereafter complainant received approval letter, from the opposite parties. Then complainant deposited Rs.22,100/- vide receipt No.294 dated 4.1.2017 as processing fee and initial security fee and also submitted the other necessary documents with the opposite party No.2 as mentioned in the approval letter/memo and thereafter opposite party No.2 gave assurance to the complainant that within a month, a tube-well connection will be released to the complainant and believing assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant sown wheat crops in his fields but due to non providing the tube-well connection to the complainant, the paddy crop of the complainant was completely destroyed, for lack of water. It is alleged that the issuance of the approval letter itself means that the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited i.e. the opposite parties are in a position to release the tube-well connection and only then the consumer is issued a letter and is ordered to deposit the further necessary charges, for release of motor connection. The complainant had deposited Rs.22,100/- on dated 04.01.2017 with the opposite party No.2 as processing fee and initial security fee, but in-spite of that after the gap of 5 year 6 months, the opposite parties have failed to release the tube-well/motor connection to the complainant and due to this reason, the complainant has been suffering losses in his crops and could not get the benefits for which he applied for tube-well connection, with the opposite parties. It is alleged that since the last about 5 years 6 months the tube-well/motor connection of the complainant has not been released and the same is being delayed on one pretext or the other without any sufficient cause or reason, although the complainant has been continuously approaching to the opposite parties for issuance of the tube-well connection. It is pertinent to mention here that opposite parties have issued the tube-well connection to the other persons of the Village, who applied the tube-well connection after the complainant, and broke the seniority list, as per their choice. They intentionally did not issue the demand notice to the complainant, although complainant had complied with all the terms and conditions, as per the approval letter issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. It is further alleged that complainant several times visited in the office of the opposite parties and requested to opposite party No.2 to release the tube-well connection, under the scheme of chairman discretionary quota to him, but they did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant and refused to release the tube-well connection to the complainant, on the pretext that code of conduct was imposed in the whole state due to Legislative Assembly Election in the year 2017 and due this reason, all tube-well connection were stayed, although there was no stay order from the election commission, regarding not to release the tube-well connection. Moreover election process was completed till April 2017 and code of conduct was withdrawn by the election commission, but despite of this, opposite parties did not take any step to release the tube-well connection to the complainant, although the opposite parties have already approved release of tubewell connection to the complainant, however now they cannot deny but the opposite parties have flatly it, refused to accede the requests of the complainant. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to release the tube-well connection of the complainant immediately, under chairman discretionary quota and pay Rs.1,50,000/- as damages/compensation besides litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that the aforesaid complaint is not maintainable, in its present form. The complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. The complaint is not filed within the stipulated period, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The complainant is estoppel from filing the present complaint. This Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands rather the complainant has concealed the true and material facts. The complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. On Merits, it is admitted that complainant had applied for the release of 7.5BHP tubewell connection on priority basis under discretionary quota of chairman and it is also a matter of record regarding the approval letter subject to the complying of the terms and conditions mentioned in the approval letter. Moreover it is specifically denied that the complainant completed all the requisite formalities as per the said letter within the stipulated period of limitation. It is submitted that the complainant failed to furnish the requisite formalities to the department within the stipulated period of limitation. Moreover it is submitted that the Code of Conduct was imposed in the state of Punjab due to the Assembly elections and as such Mr. A. Venu Prasad, Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab power department passed orders that due to the imposition of model code of conduct, w.e.f. 4-1-2017, status quo be maintained regarding the release of tubewell connections under Chairman Quota and later on, vide memo no. 13355/61 dated 19-04-2017, the PSPCL's Chief Engineer/ Commercial Patiala ordered that "All cases where agriculture tubewell applicants have complied with the demand notices and have deposited the full cost and test report before imposition of Model code of conduct, shall be released" but the complainant neither approached the opposite party before during the code of conduct or after issuance of the aforesaid letters., for the release of the tubewell connection and never furnished all the requisite formalities for the same within the stipulated period. As such the complainant is not liable to get the aforesaid tubewell connection. The complainant has now concocted a false story only in order to make a false ground to cover his own negligence. In further reply, the opposite parties have reiterated their version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of her complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 25-7-2022 (Ex. C-1) and the documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-5). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Amandeep dated 13.7.2023 (Ex. OP-1/1) and the documents (Ex.OP-1/2 & Ex.OP-1/3). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their version as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. To support their submissions, learned counsel for opposite parties have cited following cases law:- i) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case M.D Maharashtra State Financial Corporation & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Shankarsa Mamarde, 2010(7) SCC 489; ii) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case V.N Shrikhande Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes, 2011(1) CCC 272 (SC); iii) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Shashikala J Ayachi, 2022(3) RCR (Civil) 510; iv) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S Agricultural Industries, 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 628; v) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others Vs. Taj Refrigeration Industries Ltd., 2013(14) SCC 758; We have given careful consideration to these submissions. The complainant has pleaded that he applied under Chairman's Discretionary Quota on priority basis. This fact is not disputed by opposite parties. The complainant has placed on record copy of receipt (Ex.C-3) which shows deposit of amount by complainant. It is not the case of opposite parties that the complainant has not fulfilled the conditions. The only plea taken by the opposite parties is that in the meanwhile on 4-1-2017, Model Code of Conduct was imposed due to elections and thereafter on 11-1-2017, Government of Punjab imposed status quo on all the pending applications, in any category, till further orders and as such, thereafter no demand notice was issued to any person. However, this Commission is of the considered view that since the complainant has completed all the formalities prior to 4-1-2017 and had deposited the amounts as per directions of the opposite parties, as such, opposite parties cannot deny the electricity connection to the complainant by taking excuse of the ban imposed by government. Since the complainant had applied for the connection prior to 11-1-2017, as such, directions of Government of Punjab, issued on 11-1-2017 are in no way applicable to the case of the complainant and the complainant is fully entitled to electric tube well connection and the opposite parties have no right to deny the same. The cases law cited by learned counsel opposite parties are distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the case. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted and the opposite parties are directed to release the tubewell electric connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota, as already sanctioned/allowed to the complainant after preparation of estimate to deposit actual expenditure. It is made clear that the complainant will be liable to deposit the charges and complete the formalities, if any legally required. The compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced 28-09-2023 - (R.L Mittal)
President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
