Punjab

Sangrur

CC/664/2017

IC-36079Y Lt Col. Surjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Gurbinder Singh Cheema

02 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  664

                                                Instituted on:    14.12.2017

                                                Decided on:       02.04.2018

 

IC-36079Y Lt. Col. Surjit Singh (Retd). Aged 68 years son of Sh. Kartar Singh, resident of Village Kalia, P.O. Chotian, Tehsil Lehragaga, District Sangrur (Pb.), now resident of Cheema House, Teachers Colony, Opposite Raj High School, Patiala Road, Sangrur (Pb.) 148 001.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Division Budhlada, District Mansa (Pb.) through its XEN.

3.     Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Bareta (Dehati Area) Sub Division, District Mansa (Pb.) through its AEE.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S.Cheema, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri G.S.Sibia, 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 against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a retired army officer and has also agricultural land and as such, he applied for a tubewell connection under application dated 20.10.2014 through District Defence Service Welfare Officer, Sangrur for providing the electric tube well motor connection of 15 BHP on priority basis being an exservice man as per the Govt. policy.  Further case of the complainant is that on accepting the application of the complainant, the OPs directed the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.3000/- for 15 BHP power and the complainant deposited the said amount vide receipt number 524 dated 21.10.2014 and the seniority date of the complainant was fixed as 21.10.2014.  Further case of the complainant is that after the approval from the Punjab Govt. the OPS issued a circular number CC-22/2016 dated 22.7.2016, whereby the directions were issued for tube well connection upto the cut off date given in the said circular for various categories and the cut off date in respect of the ex servicemen was given as 13.11.2015.  Further case of the complainant is that on receipt of the circular, the AEE/DS Sub Division deputed a Junior Engineer to work out the estimates for the complainant’s tube well connection and accordingly a JE visited at the site of the complainant in November 2016 and prepared the estimate and submitted the same to his superiors. The complainant also constructed the kotha and completed other formalities by spending an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, but the tube well motor connection to the complainant was not released despite efforts of the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that despite submission of all the formalities the tube well connection was not released to the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to issue demand notice and grant tube well connection of 15 BHP to the complainant at his agriculture land in village Kalia and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been admitted and it is further averred that the opposite parties are ready to release the tube well motor connection to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the scheme as and when the same became in existence in future as per the orders of the Punjab Government.  The other allegation levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 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 a tube well motor connection of 15 BHP and further case of the opposite parties is that the opposite parties are ready to release the tube well motor connection under the scheme.  Since it is an admitted fact of the opposite parties that they are ready to release the electric tube well connection to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the scheme as and when the same became in existence in future as per the orders of the Punjab Government.  But, we are unable to go with the contention of the opposite parties that the connection would be released in future as per the orders of the Punjab Government, but the connection should be released in view of the earlier scheme as per the seniority list of the complainant.  There is no explanation from the side of the opposite parties that why earlier the tube well motor connection as per the scheme of the Punjab Govt was not released to the complainant.  As such, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the opposite parties are directed to issue the demand notice to the complainant and after compliance of the same the tube well motor connection of 15 BHP be released.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to issue the demand notice to the complainant for release of 15 BHP tube well motor connection and after compliance of the same, the tube well motor connection of 15 BHP be released to the complainant 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.

                 April 2, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member