Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. Sh.Darshan Singh, complainant has filed the instant complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that he is an Ex- military person and owes agricultural land in village: Nathoke, District Moga. The Complainant further alleges that he was in need of electric tubewell connection of 10 BHP and for this purpose, he applied for getting the same under Ex-Servicemen Army Personal quota and deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/- with the Opposite Parties on 9.4.2012 under receipt. The Complainant again deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- on 28.02.2013 with the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties issued a demand notice on 31.08.2012 and on the directions of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant also deposited a sum of Rs.75,533/- on 01.03.2013 with the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has also constructed a room and purchased other necessary articles and spent huge amount for this purpose and made a request to the Opposite Parties to issue the electric connection, but to no effect. All of a sudden, a letter bearing memo No.5851 dated 22.5.2018 was issued by Divisional Engineer addressed to Additional Executive Engineer in which it has been mentioned that the demand notice was issued to the Complainant due to mistake and the amount be returned, but the huge amount of the Complainant was used by the Opposite Parties and no interest has been paid. The Complainant further alleges that due to non releasing the electric connection, he is unable to irrigate his agricultural land and also deprived of his fundamental right as per circular issued by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and hence due to unwarranted and illegal acts of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has suffered huge loss and he has been harassed unnecessarily. The Complainant further alleges that the service rendered by the Opposite Parties is deficient one and the Complainant is entitled to recover Rs.80,000/- on account of mental tension, unnecessary harassment and damages. The Opposite Parties were requested many a times to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant, but they finally refused to do so, hence this complaint is filed due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- Opposite Party be directed to release the electric connection which is the gross violation of prescribed rules and regulations and to pay interest on the amount of Rs.75,533/- which was lying deposited with the Opposite Parties and also to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- on account of compensation for causing him mental tension, harassment and deficiency services.
- Any other appropriate relief as this Forum deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the Complainant.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, the Opposite Parties allege that the demand notice was issued to the Complainant inadvertently as at that time, the turn of the Complainant was not matured. In this regard, a letter was written to SDO, Smadh Bhai Sub Division on 12.09.2013 to return the amount of Rs.75,533/- to the Complainant as the connection was not allotted to him. Moreover, a letter bearing No.374 dated 9.4.2013 was also written to the Complainant that as per the departmental policy, the connection can not be released to him, and he was also informed that as and when new policy comes, the Complainant will be informed. It is also pertinent to mention over here that the amount deposited by the Complainant has already been refunded to him through cheque bearing No.828853 dated 28.10.2013. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record copy of Ex-Sericemen Identity Card Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi Ex.C2, copy of receipt of Rs.2,000/- Ex.C3, copy of receipt of Rs.1,000/- Ex.C4, copy of receipt of Rs.75,533/- Ex.C5, copy of letter dated 22.5.2018 Ex.C6, copy of letter dated 12.08.2013 Ex.C7, copy of letter dated 9.4.2012 Ex.C8 and his affidavit Ex.C9.
4. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties also placed on record the affidavit of Sh.Rajinder Singh, SDO Smadh Bhai, Ex.OPs1, copy of letter dated 12.9.2013 Ex.OPs2, copy of letter dated 9.4.2013 Ex.OPs3 and copy of letter dated 12.9.2013 Ex.OPs4.
5. We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the documents placed on record.
6. During the course of arguments, the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that he is an Ex- military person and owes agricultural land in village: Nathoke, District Moga, copy of the jamabandi is placed on record as Ex.C2. The Complainant further contended that he was in need of electric tubewell connection of 10 BHP and for this purpose, he applied for getting the same under Ex-Servicemen Army Personal quota and deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/- with the Opposite Parties on 9.4.2012 under receipt. The Complainant again deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- on 28.02.2013 with the Opposite Parties, copies of the receipts are Ex.C2 and Ex.C3. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties issued a demand notice on 31.08.2012 and as per the demand notice issued by the Opposite Parties, copy placed on record as Ex.C8, he deposited a sum of Rs.75,533/- on 01.03.2013 with the Opposite Parties, vide receipt Ex.C5. The case of the Complainant is that as per the directions of the Opposite Parties, he has also constructed a motor room and purchased other necessary articles and spent huge amount for this purpose and thereafter made a request to the Opposite Parties to issue the tubewell electric connection, but to no effect. But however, the Complainant was stunned to note that a letter bearing memo No.5851 dated 22.5.2018 was issued by Divisional Engineer addressed to Additional Executive Engineer in which it has been mentioned that the demand notice was issued to the Complainant due to mistake and the amount be returned. The Complainant further contended that due to non releasing the electric connection, he is unable to irrigate his agricultural land and also deprived of his right as per circular issued by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and hence due to unwarranted and illegal acts of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has suffered loss and he has been harassed unnecessarily. During the course of arguments, the Complainant also contended that the officials of the Opposite Parties forced him to get the refund of the deposited amount, otherwise he will neither get connection nor refund of amount, so under pressure and compelling circumstances, he took back the amount of Rs. 75,533/-, but however the initial deposited fee of Rs.3000/- (i.e. Rs.2000/- deposited vide receipt Ex.C3 and amount of Rs.1000/- deposited vide receipt Ex.C4) is still lying with the Opposite Parties and hence there is allegedly deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the Complainant on the ground that the demand notice was issued to the Complainant inadvertently as at that time, the turn of the Complainant was not matured. He further contended that in this regard, a letter was written to SDO, Smadh Bhai Sub Division on 12.09.2013 to return the amount of Rs.75,533/- to the Complainant as the connection was not allotted to him. Moreover, a letter bearing No.374 dated 9.4.2013 was also written to the Complainant that as per the departmental policy, the connection can not be released to him, and he was also informed that as and when new policy comes, the Complainant will be informed. It is also pertinent to mention over here that the amount deposited by the Complainant has already been refunded to him through cheque bearing No.828853 dated 28.10.2013 and in this way, there is allegedly no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties in the light of the evidence on record. But we are not in agreement with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties. Admittedly, the demand notice was issued by the Opposite Parties, vide letter No.1657 dated 31.08.2012 to the Complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.75,533/-, copy of which is placed on record Ex.C8 and in compliance thereof, the Complainant deposited Rs.75,533/- with the Opposite Parties on 1.03.2013 vide receipt Ex.C5 and completed all the formalities i.e. constructed a motor room and purchased other necessary articles and spent huge amount for this purpose and this fact has nowhere denied by the Opposite Parties in its written reply or in the duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Rajinder Singh, SDO, Smadh Bhai Ex.OPs1. Now when the Complainant had already deposited such hefty amount with the Opposite Parties and also constructed a room for the installation of tubewell connection and purchased other necessary articles, at that stage, the officials of the Opposite Parties wrote a arbitrary letter to the Complainant simply saying to get the refund of the deposited amount on the excuse that the said demand notice has been issued by them by mistake. But for such type of the inadvertence, if any, there was no valid cause for the complainant to suffer because issuance of demand notice inadvertently itself proves the negligence of the officer/ official (s) of the Opposite Parties in conducting their official duty. Never-the-less, the complainant has already complied with all the formalities and also spent an hefty amount on account of purchase of electric motor as well as construction of motor room etc. for no fault on his part. Rather the complainant has already made the compliance of the demand notice issued by the Opposite Parties. Now the Opposite Parties can not be allowed to back track from their stand by saying that the Complainant has already received the amount back. More-so, the Complainant, as stated above, has contended that under the compelling circumstances, he get back the refund of the deposited amount from the Opposite Parties.
9. Furthermore, as per the rules of the Opposite Parties itself, once a demand notice is issued by them to any applicant, the Opposite Parties are duty bound to release the connection to the consumer in a reasonable time. In Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2014 (Upto 4th amendment) as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission, as per clause 8 (8.1 (a), (Regulation 6.8.6 under the head Compliance of Demand Notice and Submission of Test Report) the distribution licensee shall provide supply of electricity to the premises pursuant to the application submitted under regulation 6 within thirty (30) days from the date of compliance of the Demand Notice. In the instant case, the complainant has already made the compliance of the demand notice on 01.03.2013 by depositing the requisite amount against demand notice no.1657 dated 31.08.2012 and also completed all the formalities. So the Opposite Parties are duty bound to release the connection to the complainant. But however, as detailed above, the Opposite Parties have already returned the deposited money to the Complainant.
10. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and the period of more than 6 years, which has already lapsed due to the negligence and carelessness of the officials of the Opposite Parties, we are of the considered view that the consumer is entitled for release of the tubewell connection applied for. So, we find deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the instant complaint. Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to issue the fresh demand notice of same amount i.e. Rs.75,533/- to the consumer within sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, the Opposite Parties shall release the tubewell connection in question to the complainant within further 30 days from the date of deposit of amount of demand notice i.e. Rs. 75,533/- by the consumer with the Opposite Parties. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, both the parties are left to bear their own costs. However, the complaint against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 stands dismissed because the Complainant has not arrayed Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 as per law of legal jurisprudence. In case, Opposite Party No. 1 fails to make the compliance of the order of this Fora within the stipulated period, the complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25/ 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date). Copies of this order be supplied to the parties, free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum.
