Punjab

Sangrur

CC/157/2017

Matabaksh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Rajinder Goyal

21 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    157

                                                Instituted on:      17.04.2017

                                                Decided on:       21.07.2017

 

 

 

 

Matabaksh Singh son of Kaka Singh, resident of Village Ghorenab, Tehsil Lehragaga, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

       

                        Versus

 

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

2.             SDO, PSPCL, Sub Division City, Lehragaga, Distt. Sangrur.

3.             SDO, PSPCL, Sub Division  Lehragaga (Rural) Distt. Sangrur.

4.             Sr. XEN, PSPCL, Sub Division Lehra Gagga, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Rajinder Goyal Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri B.S.Phumanwal, Adv.

 

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.               Shri Matabaksh 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 an agriculturist and as such applied for one electric tubewell connection with the Ops under general category in the year 1985 by executing A&A form and also deposited Rs.300/- vide receipt dated 28.12.1985 and the name of the complainant was entered in the priority/seniority list for the release of the connections.  Further case of the complainant is that father of the complainant, Shri Kaka Singh also applied for one AP connection on the same date i.e. 28.12.1985 by depositing Rs.300/- and against that security the OPs issued demand notice and upon compliance of the same, the connection was released to the said Kaka Singh, however, the Ops did not issue any demand notice against the security deposit of the complainant.   The complainant approached the OPs so many times rather personally met Sr. XEN Lehragaga in this request and requested to direct Ops number 2 and 3 to trace the record and to release the connection, 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 release the AP connection against the above said receipt and further to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment, to ensure urban feeder electricity supply in a day on the electric connection of the complainant and further to pay litigation expenses. 

 

2.               In reply filed by the OPs, it is admitted to the extent that the complainant applied for the electric tube well connection with the OP number 2 under general category in the year 1985 by depositing Rs.300/- as security.  Further it has been stated that the Ops could not issue the demand notice for releasing the connection due to clerical official mistake in the record of the OP number 2 and 3.  But, now the OPs issued the demand notice number 1128 dated 24.5.2017 on the basis of application dated 28.12.1985 to the complainant.  Further it is stated in the reply that complainant deposited the security amount on 28.12.1985 and was issued serial number 8921, page number 143 in the service register and one Niranjan Singh son of Kaur Singh also deposited the security amount on 26.12.1985 and allotted number 8884 on the page number 142 of service register.  This connection was issued on the name of Niranjan Singh, resident of Khokhar Kalan and installed by the Ops, but the entry of this connection was wrongly mentioned in the column in front of the entry of the complainant, while it was mentioned in front of entry of the complainant i.e. 8921 at page number 143. It is stated that it is a clerical mistake and not any intentional mistake. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. 

 

3.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of application, Ex.C-3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 copy of reply to the legal notice, Ex.C-5 copy of receipt, Ex.C-6 copy of demand notice, Ex.C-7 copy of passbook, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-10 copies of receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs  has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-26 copies of documents and closed evidence.

 

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

 

5.               It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had applied for an AP connection and deposited Rs.300/- vide receipt number 49/20305 dated 28.12.1985.   To support this contention, the complainant has also produced on record the copy of application submitted by the complainant to OPs and Ex.C-3 is the copy of legal notice dated 4.12.2014, whereby the opposite parties were requested to release the tube well motor connection to the complainant.  The opposite parties sent the reply to the legal notice vide letter dated 24.12.2014 whereby they intimated the complainant that they are not in possession of such record or information regarding receipt number 49/20305 dated 28.12.1985.  Ex.C-5 is the copy of the deposit receipt amount of Rs.70,200/- vide receipt dated 19.6.2017, Ex.C-5, which clearly shows that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.70,200/-.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant was entitled to get the tube well motor connection in the year 1985, whereas the demand notice was issued to the complainant in the year 2017 i.e. only after filing of the present complaint which was filed on 17.4.2017.  We have also perused the copy of letter dated 22.5.2017 whereby the Senior Executive Engineer Lehragaga accorded approval for the release of the demand notice and further Ex.OP-15 is the copy of the demand notice which shows that the same is duplicate one which was got deposited by the complainant vide receipt dated 19.6.2017.  All this clearly shows that the complainant was entitled to get the tubewell motor connection released in the year 1985, whereas the demand notice for release tube well motor connection in question was issued only on 22.5.2017 i.e. after a period of about 32 years.  Though the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the mistake was a clerical one and not intentional one and further to support this contention, the learned counsel for the Ops has drawn our attention towards the copy of seniority list Ex.OP-25 and Ex.OP-26, but we are unable to accept such a contention, as the complainant was going from pillar to post and was approaching the opposite parties regularly, but it is the Ops only acted upon the filing of the present complaint which was filed on 17.4.2017 and the OPs even did not react after receipt of the legal notice, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3.  Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and of negligence on the part of the OPs, for which the OPs are liable to pay exemplary compensation to the complainant for not issuing the tube well motor connection for such a long period.  Now, the OPs have issued the demand notice, which has been duly complied with by the complainant. 

 

6.               In view of our discussion, we allow the complaint and direct Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and loss suffered by the complainant.   This order of ours be complied with within a  period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 21, 2017.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                     (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Member

 

 

 

                                             (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                         Member