DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/10/286 of 21.4.2010 Decided on: 18.10.2010 Lal Singh s/o Sh.Harnam Singh, aged 70 years, through attorney Karnail Singh S/o Lal Singh, both R/o village Mardan Heri, Post Office Dakala, Tehsil & District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board , through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala. 2. S.D.O.,P.S.E.B. Sub Division, Balbera. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh. G.S.Billing, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh. Gurdarshan Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Lal Singh through attorney Karnail Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That the complainant/consumer had applied for a new connection in the fields under his possession in 2005. That the opposite parties had got deposited the amount regarding the issuance of new connection and installation of transformer. That the opposite parties till today have not done necessary work but they installed some lines to the meter of the complainant. That the complainant had so many times approached the opposite parties regarding installation, but the opposite parties kept the matter lingering on, on one pretext or the other and the officials of the opposite parties came to the motor connection of the complainant and tried to remove the lines which have already been laid by them to the motor of the complainant without any reason and without any right to do so. That the said threatening action of the officials of the opposite parties is uncalled for and illegal and invades the legal and vested rights of the complainant. That it has been more than four years that the opposite parties have categorically failed to install the connection in the fields of the complainant and the complainant used to remind the opposite parties regarding installation of the said connection in his fields but the opposite parties have not paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. That all the documents as mentioned in the memo dated 2.1.2006 have been submitted by the complainant, but till now no necessary and proper action has been taken by the opposite parties, but now they are bent upon to remove the line without any reason. That the opposite parties had completed the connection process of the other persons of the village who had applied for connection in their respective fields, but due to some inimical attitude , the opposite parties are not giving connection in the fields of the complainant but are harassing the complainant, though the motor connection has been made on priority basis and has been issued under Chairman Quota of the opposite parties, which is very much clear from the receipt dated 6.3.2005. That the complainant used to visit the opposite parties and even one memo no.570 dated 19.1.2006 has been issued to the concerned regarding priority installation of the motor connection and transformer, but same is of no use. That by this the opposite parties had showed the mal intention and mal practice adopted by them in providing service to the complainant regarding instillation of said connection and transformer for which they are liable to be prosecuted and are also liable to pay the damages to the complainant on that account and further for mental agony they had occurred on account of such lack of services provided by the opposite parties and further damages for not installing the electric connection and transformer in time. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is admitted that electric lines have been installed. It is denied that the opposite parties have not done the necessary work. In fact the work could not be carried on due to non providing of the documents by the complainant. The factual position is that to fulfill the formalities, the complainant submitted jamabandi of his agricultural land. The site where the connection was to be installed was shown by the complainant to the officials of the opposite parties. When about half of the work was completed, the officials of the opposite parties came to know that the land, on which the connection is to be installed, is not the ownership of the complainant rather it was panchayati land. As the connection could not be released in the land belonging to the panchayat and as the complainant was not the owner of the said land, so the work was immediately stopped and vide letter No.1494 dated 9.10.2006,J.E. Deena Nath was deputed to inquire into the matter.J.E.Deena Nath reported that the land in which the connection was being installed was not the ownership of the complainant, rather its ownership vested in the panchayat of the village. The complainant vide letter no.20 dated 3.1.2007 was asked to submit the fresh test report of the installation done at his own land. The test report has not been submitted by the complainant till date. That the officials of the opposite parties tried to remove the lines laid down. As the land on which the connection was being installed, did not belong to the complainant, so the lines laid down were to be removed, which the complainant obstructed to and did not allow the officials to remove the lines. It is denied that there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per the version of the complainant he had applied for a tube well connection with the opposite parties which was sanctioned under the Chairman Quota. Although the connection was sanctioned but it was not installed by the opposite parties till now. 7. Whereas version of the opposite parties is that they are ready to install connection but the complainant wants the connection to be installed in the panchayat land and not his own land which they can not do. It is also the case of the opposite parties that to fulfill the formalities the complainant submitted the jamabandi of his agricultural land. The site where the connection is to be installed was shown by the complainant to the officials of the opposite parties and when about half of the work was completed the officials came to know that the land in which the connection is to be installed is not the ownership of the complainant rather it is panchayat land and as the connection could not be released in the land belonging to the panchayat and as the complainant is not the owner of the said land so the work was immediately stopped. It is also the case of the opposite parties that vide letter No.1954 dated 9.10.2006,Ex.R3 JE Deena Nath was deputed to inquire into the matter who reported that the land in which the connection was being installed was not the ownership of the complainant rather its ownership vested in the village panchayat. It is also the case of the opposite parties that the complainant vide letter No.20 dated 3.1.2007,Ex.R5 was asked to submit the fresh test report of the installation done at his own land. The test report has not been submitted by the complainant till date and that the work could not be carried out due to non providing of the documents by the complainant. It is also the case of the opposite parties that their officials tried to remove the lines laid down as the land on which the connection was being installed did not belong to the complainant so the lines laid down were to be removed to which the complainant obstructed and did not allow the officials to remove the lines. 8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 9. The complainant has placed on record a copy of jamabandi for the year 2006-07( although not exhibited) .The jamabandi shows that the ownership vests in the village Panchayat. The complainant has failed to prove on record that this land is the same in which he had applied for the connection. Moreover the name of the complainant does not stand in any column of either ownership or in possession in the jamabandi for the year 2006-07.Even no copy of revenue officer showing the name change in column of possession has been produced on the record by the complainant. It was for the complainant to submit the jamabandi of the land in which he had applied for the AP connection. As the connection can only be given for the said site and not in any other land as per circular No.28/01 so the connection could not be released to the complainant due to the failure of the complainant himself to submit the jamabandi in the land in which he had applied for the connection. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 10. In the result the complaint merits dismissed and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:18.10.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
