JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

The complainant / respondent applied to the petitioner for a tube-well connection for agricultural purposes on 01.09.1986.  A demand notice dated 30.3.2001was prepared by the petitioner.  The case of the complainant / respondent is that the said notice was never served upon him.  When he approached the office of the petitioner Board at Patiala, he was informed that a demand notice had already been issued to him and he should seek renewal of the said demand notice.  The complainant therefore, obtained a renewed demand notice.  He also deposited a sum of Rs.19,360/- with the petitioners on 11.6.2004.  The connection however, was not energized.  On obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, the respondent / complainant came to know that his application had been ignored and the connections of the persons junior to him in seniority had been energized.  According to him, bribe was demanded from him for energizing the connection.  The complainant allegedly suffered huge loss due to his inability to irrigate the crop sown by him.  He therefore, approached the concerned District Forum, with the following claim:

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioners, who admitted that the complainant had applied for a tube well connection and had deposited the requisite charges.  According to the petitioners, the demand notice was duly issued to the complainant on 30.1.2001 but he had failed to comply with the said notice.  It was further stated in the reply that the complainant did not receive the notice on account of his non-availability.  It was also stated that the complainant was informed vide letter dated 25.5.2007 that extension could be given to him only on his complying with the conditions stipulated therein and that he should produce the copy of the Jamabandi of his land and file a fresh A&A form, photograph and affidavit. 

3.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 04.2.2009, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the said Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The aforesaid order however, was set aside by the State Commission on 12.09.2012 in an appeal filed by the complainant / respondent.  Thereafter, the District Forum vide its order dated 16.09.2013, dismissed the complaint.  Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his complaint, the complainant / respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 12.4.2016, the State Commission allowed the said appeal and directed to petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with cost of litigation quantified at Rs.15,000/-.  It was further directed that if the said payment was not made within 45 days, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum.  Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

4.      The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the State Commission having awarded only Rs.35,000/- as compensation, along with cost of litigation quantified at Rs.15,000/-, the respondent / complainant has filed an application before the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging falsely that he had been held entitled to payment of Rs.17,36,471/-, comprising Rs.6,54,360/- as the claim as per appeal, Rs.10,10,980/- as interest, Rs.50,000/- as extra relief and Rs.21,131/- as interest.  It is obvious that the amount claimed in the application by the respondent under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act is not a correct amount.  It was however, for the District Forum to look into this aspect and entertain the execution only to the extent, the claim was allowed by the State Commission.  Claiming an exaggerated amount in the application filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, cannot ipso-facto result in allowing the revision petition which has to be considered on its own merit.

5.      A perusal of the impugned order would show that the connection has since been released to the complainant on 06.12.2006.  Therefore, the only question which requires to be considered in this petition is as to whether there was negligence, resulting in delay, on the part of the petitioners in releasing the tube well connection to the respondent / complainant.

6.      Regulation 12 of the Regulations framed by the petitioner Board contains the procedure for fixing priority for the release of electric connection and the said Regulation reads as under:

          “12.   Procedure for fixing Priority for Electric Connections

          12.1  All the applications for supply for electric energy should immediately on their receipt in the sub-division/sub-office be entered in the Service Register and processed in the Chronological order so that the principle of natural justice i.e. ‘first come first served’ can be observed.  Procedure laid down below should generally be followed for the disposal of applications for electric connections.

          12.2  In case an applicant after getting his application registered for supply of power does not come forward to complete the formalities in the absence of which applicant’s case cannot be processed for sanction of load and which also blocks the sanction of applications junior to such an applicant, a 15 days’ notice if the applicant falls under General, Agricultural, SP or MS category and one month’s notice in case of LS category be served upon intimating that in case he does not come forward to complete the formalities within the stipulated period, his application will not be processed for sanction of load / release of connection and that his application will only be processed for sanction of load when he completes all the formalities.  Approval of authority higher than that competent to sanction the load should invariable be obtained before by passing a senior application”.

          The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the demand notice dated 30.3.2001 was actually dispatched to the complainant / respondent and served upon him or not.  Admittedly, no proof of the dispatch of the said demand notice dated 30.3.2001 was produced before the District Forum.  The State Commission examined the relevant record and returned the finding that no such notice had even been dispatched          to the complainant.  I specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the notice dated 30.3.2001was sent by them to the complainant / respondent.  The learned counsel submitted that the said notice was sent by Registered Post.  However, admittedly, no postal receipt, evidencing dispatch of the said demand notice dated 30.3.2001 to the complainant was produced before the District Forum.  Since the complainant / respondent had denied receipt of the said notice, it was necessary for the petitioners to produce the postal receipt whereby the said notice was allegedly sent to the complainant / respondent, before the concerned District Forum.  That having not been done, there is no escape from the conclusion that no such notice was actually dispatched.

7.      As per the Regulation 12 extracted hereinbefore, the approval of the higher authority was required to be obtained before superseding the application of the complainant and releasing the connection to his juniors in the waiting list.  Admittedly, no such approval was obtained.  The State Commission noted in this regard that they did not find any order of the higher authority allowing the petitioners to bypass the seniority of the complainant.

8.      Considering the above referred acts of the negligence and delay on the part of the petitioners in the matter of release of the tube well connection to the complainant, the order of the State Commission, awarding compensation to the extent of Rs.35,000/- and cost of litigation to the extent of Rs.15,000/- cannot be faulted with.  However, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the time for payment of the aforesaid compensation and the cost of litigation needs to be suitably extended.  It is therefore, directed that if the petitioners pay  the compensation amounting to Rs.35,000/- and the litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within six weeks from today, no interest, in terms of the order of the State Commission, would be payable on the said amount.  The revision petition is dismissed, subject to the aforesaid extension.