Punjab

Bhatinda

CC/21/225

Rajpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rajesh Bansal

16 May 2023

ORDER

Final Order of DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, Court Room No.19, Block-C,Judicial Court Complex, BATHINDA-151001 (PUNJAB)
PUNJAB
 
Complaint Case No. CC/21/225
( Date of Filing : 12 Oct 2021 )
 
1. Rajpreet Kaur
Street No.1-9, Baba Farid Nagar, Bathinda
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
The Mall, Patiala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Lalit Mohan Dogra PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Shivdev Singh MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 16 May 2023
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

 

C.C.No. 225 of 12.10.2021

Decided on : 16-05-2023

 

Rajpreet Kaur W/o Baljinder Singh, R/o Village Kothe Chet Singh Wale (Ablu) Tehsil and Distt. Bathinda, Now R/o Street No.1/9, Baba Farid Nagar, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

 

  1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.

  2. The Assistant Executive Engineer (DS), Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Goniana Mandi, Distt. Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

 

QUORUM

Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present :

 

For the complainant : Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate.

 

ORDER

 

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

 

  1. The complainant Rajpreet Kaur (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).

  2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is small farmer as she is owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 14 Kanals 12 Marlas, as per jamabandi for the year 2012-13 situated at Village Kothe Chet Singh Wale, Tehsil and District Bathinda. The complainant had applied for a motor connection/ tube-well connection 7.5 BHP on 19.12.2016 under chairman discretionary quota on priority basis for irrigation of her agricultural land with opposite parties and thereafter she received copy of order/memo No.7241/CMD/VOL-13, rural dated 26.12.2016 with approval of tube-well connection, subject to complying the condition mentioned in the approval letter, from the opposite parties. Then complainant deposited Rs.16,700/- vide receipt No.73 dated 29.12.2016 with opposite party No. 2 as processing fee and also submitted necessary documents as mentioned in the approval letter/memo No. 7241 dated 26.12.2016.

  3. It is alleged that issuance of approval letter itself means that 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.16,700/- on 29.12.2016 with the opposite party No.2 as processing fee, vide receipt No.73 dated 29.12.2016 but in-spite of that after the gap of 4 year 9 months, the opposite parties have failed to release the tube-well/motor connection to the complainant and complainant could not get the benefits for which she applied for tube-well connection.

  4. It is also alleged that tubewell 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. The opposite parties have issued 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 demand notice to the complainant, although complainant had complied with all the terms and conditions, as per approval letter No.7241 dated 26.12.2016 issued by the opposite parties.

  5. It is further alleged that opposite parties 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 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 tube-well connection. Moreover election process was completed till April 2017 and code of conduct was withdrawn by the election commission, but opposite parties did not take any step to release the tube-well connection to the complainant. Due to the said act on part of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from mental tension, agony, botheration harassment, humiliation and financial loss for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages, being the loss of crops and Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and humiliation caused to the complainant.

  6. 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.

  7. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is hopelessly time barred as the complainant applied for Tubewell connection under Chairman Discretionary Quota in December, 2016 ; complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint; complainant is not maintainable and that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.

  8. It has been pleaded that complainant had applied for tube-well connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota on priority basis in December 2016 and the opposite parties issued approval letter to the complainant on 26.12.2016 subject to various conditions, including that the complainant shall deposit Rs.2000/- per BHP as processing fee of Rs.200/- per BHP towards initial security and accordingly complainant deposited the above said amount on 29.12.2016. Thereafter issuance of demand notice was under process and in the meantime due to Assembly election in Punjab, Code of Conduct was imposed on 04.01.2017. Thereafter Principal Secretary Punjab Government vide letter dated 11.01.2017 issued instructions to the opposite parties to the effect that due to Code of Conduct, status quo be maintained with respect to all the applications received for release of AP Tube-well Connections under discretionary quota till further orders. Hence, demand notice was not issued to the complainant as well as other applicants who also applied for AP Connection in Punjab. Thereafter vide letter/circular No.1355/611 dated 09.04.2017 issued by Chief Engineer Commercial, Patiala, it was directed "All cases where agriculture Tube-Well applications have been complied with the demand notice and have deposited the full costs of connection and submitted test reports before imposition of Model Code of Conduct i.e. 4-1-201 shall be released, meaning thereby that those applicants who have not been issued demand notice and have not submitted test reports are not entitled to get connection till further orders/directions". However, in the present case no demand notice was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant, hence she was not entitled for the release of connection in question. Moreover, the validity of the approval letter is only for 3 months, which has already been expired, hence the complainant is not entitled to the connection in question until unless the new instructions are come into force.

  9. It is further pleaded that policy matter appliable to whole state of Punjab and the opposite parties are unable to intervene in the matter till further orders from the competent authority. Even as per seniority list for the release of AP Connections, the name of the complainant is at Sr. No. 165 out of total 253 pending cases. The complainant is at liberty to get the refund of her amount deposited against the connection in question and the opposite parties are ready to refund the same subject to deletion of name of complainant from the seniority list.

  10. On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above.

  11. In support of her complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 7.10.2021 (Ex. C-1) and the documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-12).

  12. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Jagjit Singh dated 16.2.2023 (Ex. OP-1/1) and the documents (Ex.OP-1/2 & Ex.OP-1/3).

  13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully.

  14. The complainant has pleaded that she 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 letter dated 26.12.2016, (Ex.C-7) whereby her request was considered and it was decided by the competent authority to allow her tubewell connection subject to conditions mentioned in the letter.

  15. 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.

  16. 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 as per condition No. 2 of the letter Ex. C-7.

  17. It is made clear that the complainant will be liable to deposit the charges and complete the formalities, if any legally required.

  18. The compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

  19. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

  20. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced

    16-05-2023

    1. (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Lalit Mohan Dogra]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Shivdev Singh]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.