Punjab

Sangrur

CC/431/2016

Surjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri Gurpreet Singh Toor

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  431

                                                Instituted on:    27.06.2016

                                                Decided on:       09.11.2016

 

 

Surjit Singh S/o Late Shri Harchand Singh, resident of Mohalla Pandusar, Tehsil Nabha, through his General Power of Attorney, Kanwaljeet Singh S/o Surjit Singh R/O Mohalla Pandusar, Tehsil Nabha Distt. Patiala.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman.

2.     S.E. Operational Circle, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sohian Road, Sangrur.

3.     The Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Opposite Govt. Ranbir College, Tibber Basti, Sangrur.

4.     S.D.O, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Village Longowal, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S.Toor, Advocate.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Surjit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint through his power of attorney Shri Kanwljeet Singh son of Surjit Singh, against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant applied for a tube well motor connection under the Chairman’s Discretionary quota on priority for irrigation of his agricultural land and also deposited an amount of Rs.22,000/- on 30.4.2012 of 10 BHP and the OPs were bound to release the tubewell connection within a period of three months.  Further case of the complainant is that though he approached the Ops so many times, but the connection has not been released. The complainant has alleged further that due to non releasing of the electric tubewell connection, the complainant suffered a lot of mental tension, financial loos as well as physical loss. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to release the tube well electric connection as applied for by the complainant and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections on the grounds that the complaint is time barred, that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum are taken up.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had applied for the release of agriculture connection and deposited the processing fee amounting to Rs.22,000/- and after that the concerned JE Manjit Singh visited the spot/site on 7.5.2012 and on that day there was no bore as well as kotha exists at the spot and, as such, as per the instructions of the OPs the same is very much necessary and further apprised the complainant that as and when the kotha and bore is  constructed, the same be intimated to the Ops for processing the connection, but the complainant thereafter never visited the office of the PSPCL.   As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of letter dated 6.7.2016, Ex.C-3 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of power of attorney, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-10 copies of letters, Ex.C-11 copy of register, Ex.C-12 copy of jamabandi, Ex.C-13 copy of letter dated 24.5.2016, Ex.C-14 to Ex.C-17 copies of postal receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of A&A form, Ex.OP-3 copy of election card, Ex.OP-4 copy of passport copy, Ex.OP-5 copy of ration card and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant has applied for release of a tube well motor connection on 30.4.2012 by depositing the processing fee amounting to Rs.22,000/- with the OPs under the chairman quota.  Further it is the case of the Ops that the Ops deputed Shri Manjit Singh JE, who visited the spot/applicant site on 7.5.2012 and reported that there is no bore as well as no kotha existing at the spot as per the instructions of the OPs, as such no estimate was prepared and further thereafter the complainant never approached the OPs.  On the other hand, the stand of the complainant is that though he approached the Ops so many times to know about the status of the connection he applied for, but the OPs explained nothing to him.  

 

6.             We have perused the copy of A&A form, which is on record as Ex.OP-2 and shows that the JE visited the spot on 24.8.2012 and has made a report on the form Ex.OP-2 that there is no bore and kotha existing at the site, as such no estimate was prepared.  But, the Ops have nothing produced on record to show that they ever intimated the complainant about the visiting of the JE at the spot, more so when the complainant was visiting the Ops so many times to get the information about the connection.  It seems that after visiting the spot of the complainant, the JE made the report on the file and kept the file with him without intimating the complainant about the position or to construct kotha and bore in the agriculture land of the complainant.  There is nothing on record produced by the Op that they ever intimated the complainant by writing any letter about the non construction of kotha and bore in the fields of the complainant.   The complainant is an old aged person and was visiting the Ops repeatedly, but the Ops failed to give any satisfactory reply.  It is the Ops, who explained about this fact only after filing of the complaint before this Forum.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is directed to construct the kotha and bore for release of the tubewell connection and thereafter to prepare estimate and release the tubewell motor connection.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the complainant to construct the kotha and bore within a period of thirty days and intimate about the same to the Ops in writing and thereafter the Ops shall prepare the estimate for releasing the connection and will issue demand notice and then only after depositing the amount by the complainant, the Ops shall release the tube well connection as applied for within a period of thirty days.  In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 9, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                  Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member