Punjab

Moga

CC/15/71

Jagsir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

15 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                     C.C. No. 71 of 2015

                                                                Instituted On: 09.09.2015

                                                  Decided On: 15.12.2015

 

Jagsir Singh aged 42 years son of Gurdeep Singh, resident of Village Nathuwala Garbi, District Moga.

Complainant 

Versus

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Senior Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, City Division, Bagha Purana, District Moga.

3. S.D.O, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Sub Division, Bagha Purana, District Moga.

 

Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                   Smt.Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Present:      Sh.Jagsir Singh, complainant in person.

                    Sh.S.K.Dhir, Advocate Counsel for opposite parties.

 

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala and others (herein-after referred to as opposite parties) - directing them to release the electric connection for agricultural purposes for the agricultural land situated in the area of village Nathuwala Garbi, District Moga and to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation, mental tension, harassment and deficient services or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper may be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the bonafide resident of Village Nathuwala Garbi, District Moga and he is the owner of 1-1/2 acres of the agricultural land. Long ago, the complainant has applied for releasing the agricultural connection for irrigation of this land. Opposite parties issued a demand notice. In pursuance of the said demand notice, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.13,000/- on 25.04.2014 and Rs.47,000/- on 28.04.2014. The complainant had deposited the said amount by taking loan from the villager. The complainant approached opposite parties to release the said connection, but concerned officer demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as illegal gratification, which the complainant is unable to pay being living in penury. Due to non release of the connection, the complainant could not irrigate his land and is suffering a huge loss. The service rendered by the opposite parties is deficient one. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; no cause of action arose to the complainant against opposite parties. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant applied for tubewell connection on 08.02.1990 and in compliance of the demand notice, on 28.04.2014, seniority list was prepared and in the seniority list, the complainant's seniority was at Sr. No.14 and opposite parties only has drawn the material of seniority no.1 to 3. The turn of the complainant has not yet come. The tube-well connection will be released to the complainant on his turn. The opposite parties has no fault moreover, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has not suffered any loss; the complainant is not entitled for any amount on account of compensation, damages, mental tension and harassment etc. Moreover, there is no policy of the opposite parties to release the connection to anybody when any scheme of the corporation will come and connection will be released to complainant as per his turn/seniority. No official of the opposite parties demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant. Denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint, opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In his evidence, the complainant Jagsir Singh appeared in witness box as his own witness and filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of his allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record photocopies of the documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

5.                To rebut the evidence of the complainant, opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh.Paramjit Singh Sidhu, AEE City Sub Division, Bagha Purana Ex.OP1,2,3/1 to OP1,2,3/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.

6.                We have heard complainant and learned counsel for opposite parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

7.                Complainant has vehemently contended that he applied for tubewell connection for irrigation of his land and as per the demand notice, he has deposited a sum of Rs.13,000/- on 25.04.2014 and Rs.47,000/- on 28.04.2014, copies of the receipts accounts for Ex.C-3 with the opposite parties. It is further contended that despite completing all the formalities for the release of the tubewell connection in his fields, he has been deprived of his right without any rhyme or reason. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant for which he has claimed Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has vehemently contended that the complainant applied for tubewell connection on 08.02.1990 and in compliance of the demand notice, seniority list was prepared, copy of the demand notice accounts for Ex.OP1,2,3/3. In the seniority list, the complainant's seniority was at Sr. No.14 and opposite parties has only drawn the material of seniority no.1 to 3. The turn of the complainant has not yet come. The tube-well connection will be released to the complainant on his turn. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is further contended that no official of the opposite parties had demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant and it is contended that complaint may be dismissed with costs.

9.                We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.

10.              There is no denying the fact that the complainant applied for tubewell connection on 08.02.1990 under general category, copy of the application accounts for Ex.OP1,2,3/4. It is also not disputed that the complainant has deposited Rs.13,000/- on 25.04.2014 and Rs.47,000/- on 28.04.2014 in compliance the demand notice issued by the opposite parties, copy of the receipts accounts for Ex.C-3. The only contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties for non releasing the tubewell connection to the complainant was that in the seniority list, the complainant's seniority was at Sr. No.14 and the turn of the complainant has not yet come. The tube-well connection will be released to the complainant on his turn. Admittedly, the demand notice Ex.OP1,2,3/3 was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant on 08.09.2008, but they kept mum and slept over the matter for more than seven years for the reasons best known to them. Furthermore, for such type of the inadvertence, there was no valid cause for the complainant to suffer. In the case in hand, the complainant has already complied with the demand notice by depositing such hefty amount of Rs.13,000/- on 25.04.2014 and Rs.47,000/- on 28.04.4014, copy of the receipts accounts for Ex.C3. Furthermore, as per the rules of the opposite parties itself, once a demand notice was issued by the opposite parties to any applicant, the opposite parties were duty bound to release the connection to the applicant within a reasonable time. In Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 (As notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification no.PSERC/ Secy/ Regu.31 dated June 29, 2007 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette dated July 27^th, 2007), as per clause 6.3 (a), the licencee shall provide the supply of electricity to the premises within thirty 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 by depositing the fee of Rs.13,000/- and Rs.47,000/-, which is an admitted fact. The complainant has also completed all other formalities for getting the connection. The simple fact that the connection was to be released on turn, is no ground to keep the application for electric connection pending for such a long time. As such, the opposite parties are duty bound to release the connection to the complainant.

11.              Admittedly, in the instant case, the complainant had applied for the tubewell connection way back on 08.02.1990 and thereafter opposite parties issued demand notice on 08.09.2008, but we fail to understand why the connection was not released within a reasonable time from 2008. In this case, the complainant has been deprived of the use of his hard earned money for a long time without any rhyme or reason. We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for release of the tubewell connection applied for. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

12.              In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that present complaint must allowed and the same is ordered to be allowed. The opposite parties are directed to release the tubewell connection in question to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) to the complainant on account of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment besides Rs.1000/-(One thousand only) as litigation expenses. In case, the opposite parties fail 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. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

                   (Bhupinder Kaur)          (Vinod Bala)        (S.S. Panesar)

                    Member                         Member                   President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:15.12.2015