Punjab

Sangrur

CC/156/2022

Karnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. R.S.Toor

25 Jul 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No.   156

 Instituted on  :   04.02.2022

                                                                          Decided on :    25.07.2023   

 

1. Karnail Singh Son of Nahar Singh, R/o Rampura, Tehsil Bhawanigarh and Distt. Sangrur.         

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman Cum MD/Secretary, the Mall, Patiala.
2. Asstt. Executive Engineer/S.D.O., PSPC Ltd. Sub Division, Bhawanigarh.

….Opposite parties. 

 

 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          :MEMBER

KANWALJEET SINGH              : MEMBER

 

For the complainant  : Shri Rajinder Singh Toor Adv.              

For the Ops             : Shri Mohit Verma Adv.

 

ORDER BY

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL. PRESIDENT

1. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant for the better growth of the crops on 29.3.2007 applied for motor connection under 2.5 Acre scheme and deposited the requisite fee in the office of Op.2 vide receipt number 40799/AP. Till today the Ops not issued any letter or gave any information in this regard and not installed any connection in his fields. As per the knowledge of the complainant Ops installed the motor connection of those farmers who applied in the said scheme. Complainant visited number of times in the office of Op.2 but the Ops did not provide any information with regard to the status of his connection. Now they denied that the complainant never applied the connection and lastly prayed the Ops may kindly be directed to install the motor connection on the basis of receipt number 40799/AP on dated 29.3.2007 and issued a demand notice in this regard and to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension and harassment caused by the Ops and to pay Rs. 55,00/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written version and taking legal objections that the complainant does not come with the clean hands and has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complainant against Ops. Ops are not liable for any deficiency in services or unfair trade practice. On merits, it is submitted that the true facts are that the complainant was applied for 7.5 BHP AP motor connection in the year 2007 by depositing Rs. 1600/- alongwith A & A form number 40790 dated 29.3.2007. The Ops issued the demand notice number 330 dated 18.2.2014 in the name of complainant. The complainant was clearly bound to comply the required formalities of the same but instead of compliance the same neither the complainant approached to the Ops nor compliance the same till today and knowingly kept mum and due to non compliance of formalities the AP connection did not issue to the complainant. Copy of dispatch register and Service register are attached. Moreover, the present complaint is time barred. Now, the complainant has no legal rights to file the complaint against the Ops. The present complaint is false and frivolous one and lastly prayed complaint may kindly be dismissed with special costs.
3. In order to prove the complaint the complainant tendered into the evidence Ex.C-1  affidavit and Ex.C-2 copy of receipt and closed the evidence. Similarly, Ops tendered into evidence Ex.Ops/1 affidavit and Ex.Ops/2 copy of A & A form.
4. We had heard the learned counsel of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsel of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition. Now come to major controversy whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer or not?
5. No Doubt it is admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer qua Ops. It is not disputed that the complainant has applied AP connection with the Ops and deposited Rs. 1600/- vide receipt number 64 & book number 42297 dated 29.3.2007. It transpire from the perusal of Ex.C-2 complainant applied AP connection of 7.5 HP. To prove his case complainant has tendered in to evidence duly attested affidavit which is Ex.C-1.
6. Per contra, reply on merits at para no.3, Ops admitted this factum that complainant in the year of 2007 deposited Rs. 1600/- alongwith A & A form number 40790 dated 29.3.2007. Further Ops admitted again with regard to issuance of demand notice number 330 dated 18.2.2014 in the name of complainant. From the examination of record file there is not a single piece of evidence regarding Ops issued any demand notice (supra) toward complainant. However, Ops neither disclosed in his pleading nor his evidence that what are the required formalities of the motor connection. This Commission has minutely examined the document Ex.Ops/2, It is specifically mentioned at serial number 40790 that complainant has applied AP connection under General category. However, it is also mentioned the demand notice number 330 dated 18.2.2014. We feel that Ops are miserably failed to prove on which date, Month and year the Ops dispatched the demand notice to the complainant. Ops neither produced on record the dispatched register nor produced what was mode of postal communication made by the Ops qua the complainant. From this angle, the plea taken by Ops is not authentic one before the eye of law. Ex.Ops/1 is duly attested affidavit of Engineer Harbans Singh, the official of Ops admitted in para no.1 of the affidavit that complainant applied for 7.5 HP agriculture purpose connection in the year 2007 complainant deposited Rs. 1600/- alongwith A & A form number 40790 dated 29.3.2007. This Commission has observed that it is a well established principle of Law is that "Admission is the best Evidence" when any party admits the facts of the other party then no need to prove it by cogent evidence. Moreover, the Ops are failed to refund the deposited amount to the complainant since 29.3.2007 to till date. We have no hesitation to hold this factum that the Ops are liable for deficiency in service qua the complainant.  This is a fit case to redress the grievance of the complainant.
7. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present complaint in hand and with careful analysis of the evidence available on record, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Ops to issue the fresh demand notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter install the AP connection in the agriculture land of complainant. Further the complainant is also directed to complete the required formalities like as to installation of the bore and intimate in writing to the Ops within 15 days after completion of the formalities.

8. This order be complied by Ops within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of order.
9. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.  

                                  Announced.      

                                                         July 25, 2023

 

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member                  President