DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 419

 Instituted on:   19.04.2022 

                                                                         Decided on:      12.10.2023

Ujagar Singh aged about  64 years son  of Shri Bhan Singh, resident of village Karail, Tehsil  Moonak, District Sangrur.       

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,  through its Secretary, Head Office: The Mall, Patiala;

2.     XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Lehra Tehsil Lehra, District Sangrur.

3.     SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.   

….Opposite parties. 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                           : MEMEBR

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

For the complainant  : In person.              

For the Ops             : Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate.

ORDER

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1.             The  brief facts  of the case are that the complainant on  28.03.2007 deposited security amount of Rs.1500/- to the Ops  for release  of agriculture tubewell connection.  In the month of May 2014, the complainant received a notice from OP no.3 to prepare all the documents and got submitted before the  office of OP no.3. The OP no.3 issued the estimate of Rs.48882/- to the complainant. When the complainant requested the OP no.3  to get the same  deposit from him then the employee of OP no.3 refused to accept the amount and stated that  the stay order has passed by the Hon’ble High Court. After that in the year of 2016 the OPs again issued notice to the applicants who had applied the tubewell connection, but this time  complainant has not received any notice from the Ops. On 02.03.2019, the complainant received a notice from OPno.3 that if  the complainant  wants to get the tubewell connection  then he will have to submit the documents before their office. The complainant deposited all the requisite  documents to OP no.3 on 14.03.2019  but despite of that the Ops  failed to release the tubewell connection. In the Month of May 2020,  OPs   told the complainant   to submit the consent letter from their brothers for the release of tubewell connection in his name.  In the month of November 2021 the complainant received  a letter  and told  the complainant to get attest the consent letter from Tehsildar which is totally wrong  and illegal. The complainant is suffering a huge  loss as he failed to cultivate his land without source of irrigation  and suffered a loss of Rs.80,000/- to Rs.90,000/-  since last  three years. The complainant  has lastly prayed that the Ops may kindly directed to release the tubewell connection to the complainant  after completing all the formalities. Further, the Ops be directed to pay a sum of Rs.90000/- on account of loss suffered by the complainant and  Rs.1,00,000/-  on account of  mental agony and harassment.  

2.             Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written version, taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, the Ops  pleaded in their reply that the complaint  admitted to be correct to the extent that earlier a  demand notice dated 18.02.2014 was issued to the complainant with a tentative amount of Rs.49842/-.  The  undertaking being given by the complainant to the effect that he could not  earlier comply the demand notice and sought extension of time for compliance the demand notice. A letter no.457 dated 12.02.2019 was sent to the complainant by the Ops and given him a final opportunity to comply with the demand notice. The complainant in compliance of the said letter  submitted certain documents. It is specifically denied that the complainant deposited all the requisite documents in the office of OPs. In fact the complainant had failed to submitted NOC of other co sharer and indemnity bond duly attested by the Tehsildar.  Due to non-submission of  the said documents  connection  could not be released to the complainant.  The Ops has rightly demanded the above said documents from the complainant  as per recent and prevailing rules  and circulars of the corporation and the complainant is bound to submit the same for getting the connection  released in his name. The remaining allegations are denied by the Ops and prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed.

3.             In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his self attested  affidavit Ex.C-1 and some documents which are Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence.

4.             On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties have produced  documents i.e  Ex.Ops/1 to Ex.Ops/5  and  affidavit Ex.Ops/6  and closed evidence.  

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for  parties and gone through the record file carefully  with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings, so  there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.

6.             Now, come to major controversy,  whether the complainant is liable for relief  as claimed by him in his prayer or  not?

7.             The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1 to prove his case. The contents of the affidavits are similar to the pleadings of the complaint,  the same are not  repeated herein  for the sake  of brevity. It is  not disputed  that the complainant is a consumer  qua the Ops. Further, it is not disputed  that  the complainant had applied  agriculture tubewell connection  7.5 BHP to the office of Ops and deposited the processing fee of Rs.1500/- on 28.03.2007.  The Ops issued a receipt no.22 vide book number 43065 on 28.03.2007 in favour of the complainant which is Ex.C-2. It is admitted by  Ops at para no.3 (b)  reply on merits that  earlier a demand notice dated 18.02.2014  was issued to the complainant with the tentative amount of Rs.49842/-.

8.             Per contra, as per Ex.Ops/10  an undertaking given  by complainant to the officials of OPs for execution the compliance of the rules and regulations of the powercom and put his signature in English.  From this angel, this Commission has the considered view that the Ops could not prove this factum that on which date, month  and year the complainant had given the undertaking  as per their official record. As per Ex.Ops/2   notice no.457  issued  on  12.02.2019 to the complainant with regard to first demand notice no.616 dated 18.02.2014. It is writ large on the file that officials of the Ops one side stated in the notice (supra) that the complainant has  limitation to comply  with the demand notice between 3-6 months.  On the other hand, para no.3 (b)  of reply of Ops pleaded that  corporation  was restrained    for releasing new  tubewell connections, so connections could not  be issued at that time. It seems to this Commission that the stand of Ops is contradictory itself. However,  the complainant submitted the required documents to the Ops like as indemnity bond dated 6.3.2019  of the complainant duly attested by the Notary Public,  which is Ex.Ops/3.  Undertaking given by the complainant   which is Ex.Ops/4 also attested by the Notary Public.  Ex.Ops/5 is an affidavit dated 6.3.2019 of complainant duly attested by the EXecutive Magistrate, Moonak. Ex.Ops/6  another affidavit dated 6.3.2019 submitted by complainant   and he pleaded at para 3 in  the affidavit   that no dispute  or case is pending.  As per  Ex.Ops/8 the complainant’s brother namely Joginder  Singh and Sukhdev Singh duly executed joint affidavit  and  pleaded at para no.2 of the affidavit that “ Ujjagar Singh installing  a tubewell connection  on his own share of the land. They further stated that if the department  has installed the connection then they have no objection”. We feel that neither the Ops denied this factum  that  complainant did not furnish the required documents  nor produced any cogent evidence,  whether any civil or revenue litigation is pending  in any court between the complainant and other co sharers. The complainant mentioned at para no.5  of his written  arguments  that he  has permanent bodily disability.  The complainant  submitted  disability identity card alongwith  written arguments. It is transpired  from the perusal  of the unique disability  identity card issued by the Govt. of India , the complainant is hundred percent  disability of low vision. Moreover, the complainant  is 65 years old.  We feel that the complainant is a senier  citizen  and having  no eyesight . It is a writ large on the file  the complainant has deposited the processing fee of Rs.1500/-on 28.03.2007 to the office of Ops. This Commission  has no hesitation  to hold  that the officials  of Ops are failed to provide service  since 16 years  and six months to the complainant.  From this angel ,the Ops are laible  for deficiency  in service qua  the complainant. We feel that it is  fit case  to redress  the grievance of the complainant.  We  feel  that the circular/ instructions no.20/2018  dated 13.04.2018 which  is ExOPs/9 clause  11  of circular provides  that “ the applicant  to submit the NOC from  other  co-sharers, if  the land  is more than one or more  co sharers.”

9.             It is incumbent  upon the Ops   to  prove this factum  that  instructions ( supra) shall not  inconsistent  with  the provisions of the Electricity Act,2003,  electricity  supply  instructions manual  2018,  Central  Electricity Authority Regulations 2023, bylaws  of PSPCL.  However,  Ops  pleaded   in reply at para no.3 ( e)  that recent rule/ circular/ corporation mandates  the  submissions of NOC  of other co sharer. During arguments learned counsel for Ops did not convinced  us   the circular ( supra)  is  not prejudice  or  affect   the spirit of the Electricity Act,2003  Electricity  Supply  Instructions Manual  2018, Central  Electricity Authority Regulations 2023 bylaws  of PSPCL.

9.             Resultantly,  keeping  in view of the  facts and  circumstances  of the  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 15 days from date of receipt of this notice and  installed  the AP connection in the agriculture  land of the complainant.  Further,  the  complainant is also directed to  complete  the required formalities like  as to installation  the bore and  to submit intimation  in writing  to the Ops. This  order be complied with by OPs within 45 days  from the  receipt of copy  of this order.    

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

12.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Announced.                                              

                                October 12, 2023

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

    Member                        Member                  President

BBS/-