DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 320 of 21.8.2019

                                      Decided on:           11.6.2021

Surjit Singh S/o Late Sh.Joginder Singh, resident of village Galwatti, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala through its Chief Managing Director, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Addl.S.E.Nabha Division, PSPCL, Nabha, District Patiala.
3. S.D.O./Operation, PSPCL, Dhingi Sub Division, Village Dhingi, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.Gurpreet Singh,counsel for the complainant.

                                      Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal,counsel for OPs.                                

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Surjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case  are that the complainant is having agriculture land at village Galwatti, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala  and he applied for an electric tubewell connection under Chairman Quota scheme on priority basis and deposited processing fee of Rs.33,500/-on 2.2.2016.He also deposited Rs.3000/-as security on 13.6.2016.It is averred that allotment letter in favour of the complainant was issued by the OPs vide which they were bound to release the tubewell connection within three months but the connection was not released till date.The complainant made several requests to the OPs in this regard. He has also got dig borewell and constructed kotha on the instructions of the OPs and spent more than Rs.2lacs but the OPs failed to release the tubewell connection, which caused mental agony harassment to the complainant. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the complaint by giving directions to the OPs to release the tubewell connection in the agriculture land of the complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment and Rs.5000/-as costs of the complaint.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. Preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands.
4. On merits, it is admitted that the amount was deposited as security. It is also admitted that the priority letter was issued in favour  of the complainant. It is submitted that the priority to the complainant was given under CMD Quota and a letter was issued to the CMD of PSPCL by the Principal Secretary that the status Quo should be maintained till further orders with respect to the release of AP connection .As such the connection could not be released to the complainant. After denying all other averments made in the complaint the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
6. The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Dharam Pal Singh, SDO Dhingi Sub Division, PSPCL alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has applied for electric tybewell connection under Chairman Quota on priority basis and deposited Rs.33,500/- on 2.2.2016 and further deposited Rs.3000/-as security on 13.6.2016.The ld. counsel further argued that thereafter allotment letter was issued by the OPs vide which they were bound to issue the tubewell connection but till date they have not released the same. The ld. counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment PSPCL and others Vs. Mukhtiar Singh decided by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh on 18.7.2018 ,in which appeal of PSPCL was dismissed.
9. On the other hand on behalf  of the OPs the ld. counsel argued that letter was issued to the CMD of PSPCL by the Principal Secretary for the status qua and connection could not be issued.
10. To prove the case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and has deposed as per his complaint,Ex.C1 is the receipt of Rs.33500/- and Rs.3000/-, Ex.C2 is also the receipt of Rs.33500/-same as of Ex.C1, Ex.C3 is the indemnity bound,Ex.C4 is the copy of jamabandi and Ex.C5 is the  letter for release of tubewell connection.
11. On the other hand short affidavit has been submitted by Dharam Pal Singh, SDO. It is deposed that the complainant has applied for AP connection under Chairman Quota and priority was given to the complainant .Letter was issued to  CMD of PSPCL by the Principal Secretary for maintaining Status Qua till further orders. The OPs have also attached copy of letter of Sh. A Venu Prasad, Principal Secretary for maintaining status quo till further orders for release of AP tubewell connections and this letter is dated 11.1.2017.After that more than 4 ½ years have been passed but no such new letter has been placed on the file by the PSPCL which can show that what is the fate of Sh.Surjit Singh who was given the connection in Chairman Quota and deposited the amount as demanded by the PSPCL. Letter of approval of connection,Ex.C5 was also issued to the complainant.
12. So it is clear that PSPCL despite having received the amount in the year 2016 and despite the fact that letter Ex.C5 with regard to release of connection was issued  to Surjit Singh have not release the connection to the complainant till date. As such the complaint stands allowed and the OPs are directed to release the connection as per the policy and as per the seniority of the complainant of the sub division under which it falls. Compliance of the OPs be made by the OPs within a period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.   

ANNOUNCED

DATED:11.6.2021       

                                        Vinod Kumar Gulati            Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                Member                                    President