| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 2 of 4-1-2022 Decided on : 16-05-2023 Swaranjeet Singh aged about 33 years S/o Jugraj Singh R/o Village Gehri Bhagi, 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, Kotshamir, Tehsil & 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. Abhey Singla, Advocate. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Swaranjeet 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 as he is owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 42 Kanals 12 Marlas, as per jamabandi for the year 2019-20 situated at Village Gehri Devi Nagar, Tehsil and District Bathinda. The complainant applied for a motor connection/tube-well connection of 7.5 BHP under chairman discretionary quota on priority basis for irrigation of his agricultural land with opposite parties and thereafter he received approval letter, regarding approval of tube-well connection, subject to complying with the terms and condition mentioned in the approval letter. Then complainant deposited Rs.2,000/- vide receipt No.552 dated 03.01.2017 as processing fee and Rs.20,000/- vide receipt No.553 dated 03.01.2017 as initial security and also submitted necessary documents. It is alleged that the 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.22,000/- on 03.01.2017 as processing fee and initial security fee, vide receipts No.552 and 553 dated 03.01.2017 but in-spite of that after the gap of 4 years 11 months, the opposite parties have failed to release the tube-well/motor connection to the complainant and due to this reason, complainant could not get the benefits for which he applied for tube-well connection. 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 the opposite parties for issuance of tube-well connection and also filed the applications, due to this reason the complainant is suffering huge losses every year as his crops are being ruined due to lack of water. The complainant alleged that the 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 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. The complainant alleged that he several times visited the office of the opposite parties a requested to to release the tube-well connection, under the scheme of chairman discretionary quota, but they did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant and refused to release the tube-well connection on the pretext that code of conduct was imposed in the whole state due to Legislative Assembly Election in the year 2017 and 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. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to release the tube-well connection of the complainant immidiately, under scheme of chairman discretionary quota and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and Rs.50,000/- on the account of harassment and humiliation caused by the opposite parties. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint; complaint is hopelessly time barred; complicated questions of law and facts are involved in this case, which require elaborate evidence, which can only be done in Civil court and as such this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint. On merits, the opposite parties have admitted that complainant had applied for a Tubewell Connection under Chairman Discretionary Quota on priority basis for irrigation of his agricultural land situated at Village Gehri Bhagi and PSPCL vide its memo No.41903 dated 9.12.2016 approved the application for release of Tubewell Connection to complainant out of CMD, PSPCL Discretionary Quota and further instructions were issued by Deputy Chief Engineer, PSPCL, Bathinda vide the above said letter. The complainant then deposited Rs.2,000/- vide receipt No.552 dated 3/4.1.2017 as processing fee and Rs.20,000/- vide receipt No.553 dated 3/4.1.2017 as security, with the opposite parties. It has been pleaded that on 4.1.2017, Code of Conduct was imposed in Punjab due to General elections and that is why no estimate could be prepared and no demand notice could be issued to the complainant. Thereafter no fresh instructions were received from Punjab Government/ higher authorities and because of non-issuance of demand notice, connection could not be released to the complainant. The opposite parties are bound to act as per the goverment instructions and as per Rules & Regulations of Board for release of Tubewell Connection. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 3.1.2022 (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 Himanshu Tanwar dated 17.1.2023 (Ex. OP-1/1) and the photocopy of letter (Ex.OP-1/2). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The complainant has pleaded that he applied under Chairman's Discretionary Quota on priority basis. This fact is not disputed by opposite parties. The opposite parties have admitted in para No. 3 of reply on merits that request of the complainant was considered and it was decided by the competent authority to allow him tubewell connection subject to conditions mentioned in the letter 9-12-2016. 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. 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:- 16-05-2023 - (Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
