Punjab

Sangrur

CC/569/2017

Gurmeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.R.K.Singla

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

 

                                                Complaint No.  569

                                                Instituted on:    01.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       04.04.2018

 

Gurmeet Kaur aged 48 years W/o Sukhwinder Singh R/O Chainpura Basti, Ward No.8, Lehra Gagga, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, (PSPCL) The Mall, Patiala through its C.M.D.

2.     SDO, PSPCL, Sub Division, Lehra Gagga (Rural), Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri R.K.Singla, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri R.K.Misra, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

               

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Smt. Gurmeet Kaur,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant and one Kaur Singh exchanged their land with each other and mutation of the land was also sanctioned and reflected in revenue records and  they took the physical possession of the respective land after exchange at village Changaliwala and Village Ramgarh Sandhuan.  Further case of the complainant is that Kaur Singh had applied for a tube well connection with the OP number 2 by depositing security in the year 1990 and demand notice was issued in the year 2014 and he got released the tube well motor connection bearing account number AP-03/158 at village Ramgarh Sandhuan. Further case of the complainant is that in the year 2016 the complainant and said Kaur Singh again exchanged the lands in question and got the mutation sanctioned in the revenue records, as such the complainant moved application to OP number 2 for transfer of the electric tube well motor connection in her name and also submitted original affidavit of Kaur Singh as well as Jamabandi and also  deposited Rs.1500/- from the complainant vide receipt number 109 dated 1.7.2017, but the grievance of the complainant is that the connection in question was not transferred in her name despite completion of formalities. Though the complainant approached the Ops so many times for the purpose, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to transfer the electric tube well motor connection bearing account number AP-03/158 from the name of Kaur Singh to the name of complainant and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been admitted to the extent that the complainant applied for the transfer of the tube well motor connection in question in her name, but it is stated that the same could not be transferred earlier in her name as she has not submitted any affidavit of Kaur Singh for the purpose.  As the complainant submitted only the affidavit on 29.11.2017, the connection in question was transferred in her name during the pendency of the present complaint.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 copies of documents and affidavit 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.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact of the opposite parties that the complainant had applied for transfer of the tube well motor connection bearing account number AP03/158 in her name vide application and receipt number 109 dated 1.7.2016 by depositing the amount of Rs.1500/-, as is evident from the copy of receipt on record as Ex.C-1.  It is not in dispute that the complainant had applied for transfer of the tube well motor connection, but the case of the OPs is that the complainant had not submitted the affidavit of Shri Kaur Singh from whom name the connection was to be transferred in the name of the complainant.  It is worth mentioning here that during the pendency of the present complaint, the connection in question has already been transferred, but the fact remains that the connection was only transferred after filing of the present complaint.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the complainant submitted the affidavit of Kaur Singh, Ex.OP-5 only on 29.11.2017 and after that the connection was immediately transferred in her name.  It is worth mentioning here that the OPs had accepted the application of the complainant duly supported by the documents including the affidavit of Kaur Singh and got deposited the amount of Rs.1500/- from the complainant for the transfer of the connection in question, then the question of demanding another affidavit of Kaur Singh does not arise at all.  There is not even a copy of single letter written to the complainant by the Ops, whereby the Ops demanded any such affidavit of Kaur Singh.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the OPs are deficient in service by not transferring the connection in question in the name of the complainant, more so when they had already got deposited the transfer fee of Rs.1500/- on 1.7.2016 from the complainant, as is evident from the copy of receipt Ex.C-1 on record.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the OPs remained mum for transfer of the connection till the filing of the present complaint and the Ops acted only after filing of the present complaint by the complainant.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.  This order of ours be complied with within a  period of thirty days of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                 April 4, 2018.

                                                        (Sarita Garg)

                                                     Presiding Member

 

 

                                                             

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                            Member