Complainant Santokh Singh, has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount received in excess from him which he had deposited under protest and to receive the amount from him on the basis of terms and conditions and rules applicable when the connection was applied and due. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him due to deficient in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an Ex-serviceman and applied for 3 BHP tubewell connection in Ex-serviceman/Military Quota in the year 2006 and deposited Rs.1000/- as security on 9.3.2006 vide book no.D 64489 receipt no.412. He has further pleaded that as per instruction he was entitled tubewell connection immediately after applying for the same  if he was to deposit Rs.3600/- per HP, but the opposite parties did not release the tubewell connection despite repeated requests and kept the matter pending for a period of six years. The opposite parties issued demand notice No.411 dated 30.3.2012 to him after a lapse of 6 years and demanded Rs.1,29,250/- which was totally illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and instructions of the Corporation. He approached the opposite party no.1 and requested him to rectify the demand notice and to charge amount of Rs.3600/- per horse power. Because he had deposited security on 9.3.2006 for releasing tubewell connection in Ex-serviceman/military quota which was to be released immediately and if an amount of Rs.10,800/- were to be paid by him but the opposite party no.1 flatly refused to listen his request and threatened that in case he shall not deposit Rs.1,29,250/- his name shall be deleted from the seniority list and tubewell connection shall not be released. He left with no option was forced to deposit Rs.1,29,250/- under protest with the opposite parties vide receipt no.475 dated 3.5.2012 as he was in dire need of tubewell connection. As per the estimate prepared by the opposite parties 5 poles were to be erected for facilitating connection to him but the opposite parties acted in a biased manners and erected 8 poles instead of 5 poles as per estimate, thereby putting more burden on him. He has next pleaded that he made a complaint to the opposite party no.5 and inquiry report was conducted by opposite parties no.3 and 4 vide memo no.2785/87/43 and 61/CF/12 dated 17.2.2014 it was stated that Santokh Singh had applied for tubewell connection under army/fauji quota on 9.3.2006 and submitted an application to SDO Dorangla, this application was registered vide serial no.10805-AP dated 9.3.2006 to SDO Dorangla. Balkar Singh withheld the application without any reason and rhyme under his possession for about 2 years and 8 months and thereafter submitted application to the opposite party no.2 for passing the order vide letter no.2935 dated 12.12.2008 but the opposite party no.2 refused the application vide ref.no.83509 dated 27.1.2009 and same was returned back to SDO Dorangla The same application filed after his application was sanctioned and they were issued connection whereas complainant’s application for tubewell connection was rejected on the ground of delay. His application was refused only because of the fault of Balkar Singh UDC and Subash Chander ARA and Mehnga Singh AAE Sub Div. Dorangala. An enquiry was conducted by opposite party no.4 and report was submitted on 19.9.2014 in which it is found that there is improper delay on the part of PSPCL and not any delay on his part. Now he requested to the opposite parties to refund the payment of Rs.1,29,250/- but the opposite parties refused to repay the same. The amount deposited by him under protest is liable to be refunded with interest. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties which also amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant is claiming the amount deposited by him in excess, so he filed the complaint to recover the amount. The proper remedy for the complainant is to file the suit for recovery before the Civil Court and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Ld.Forum and such type of matters does not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act; the complaint of the complainant involves complex question which needs a lot of evidence, so he should go to Civil Court; the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant based his claim on the inquiry report, in which he alleged that the fault is of Balkar Singh UDC Consumer Clerk, Subash Chander ARA and Mehnga Singh, AAE Sub Division Dorangla. All the above three said persons already retired from the department. The complainant has not made them party to the complaint and it is not possible to decide the abovesaid claim in the absence of above those persons, so the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and the complaint is barred by limitation. The limitation period of filing the consumer complaint is of two years. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant applied under Ex.serviceman Quota. It was wrong and denied that the complainant is entitled for tubewell connection immediately after the deposit of Rs.3600/-. It was submitted that the demand notice has been issued and the demand of Rs.1,29,250/- in the notice is legal and valid and has been sent as per rules and instructions. It was also wrong and denied that the connection was to be released immediately and amount of Rs.10,800/- was to be paid and any threat has been given to the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.1,29,250/- and this amount has been deposited under protest.  The Poles have been erected as per requirement and for the safety and no un-reasonable burden has been leveled on the complainant. It was further submitted that the complainant has not intentionally made Balkar Singh UDC, Subash Chander ARA and Mehnga Singh, AAE as party to the present complaint and only they can tell the exact reason. The present SDO namely Er.Baljit Singh posted at Dorangla on 22.5.2012 and the matter not pertains to their time. Due to which it is very much necessary for the complainant to make the aforesaid persons namely Balkar Singh UDC, Subash Chander ARA and Mehnga Singh, AAE as party to the complaint. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.     Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.  

5.       On the other hand, Sh.Baljit Singh S.D.O. of opposite parties No.1 to 4 and 6 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.       We find that the OP service providers have admittedly (Ex.C4) raised/ issued (to the complainant) the impugned demand for Rs,1,29,250/- instead of the ‘correct & legal’ amount of Rs.18,000/- thus forcing him to shell out an ‘additional & illegal’ sum of Rs.1,11,250/- (deposited on 03.05.2012, under protest) to avail of the instant-release ‘connection facility’ to which he has been ‘otherwise’ eligible/ entitled being an ‘ex-serviceman’. The averments raised by the OPs that, i) the ‘excess’ payment/ deposit need be recovered (by the complainant) through a ‘recovery’ suit duly filed in the civil court; ii) the complaint non-maintainable being bad for of the non-joiner of the 3 nos. of erring delinquent officials who have since retired from the OP service; and lastly, iii) the excess demand amount was deposited by the complainant at his own free will and consent and without any protest and presently he was estopped to file the complaint; are not legally tenable in the absence of any cogent supporting evidence and thus are judiciously set-aside, in the wake of i) section 3 of the Act making its provisions as additional remedies available to consumers; ii) the settled principles of the vicarious liability of the ‘employer’ for the ‘misconduct’ exhibited during the discharge of ‘official duty’ by the employees and lastly iii) the circumstantial but judicial ‘deduction’ that the excess amount was deposited by the complainant under ‘coercion’ to manage the ‘electric power connection’ to save his crops/harvests from drought etc. This amply depicts the sad state of affairs governing the raising and issuance of the Deposit Demands upon the consumers and the callous attitude of the OP officials towards its customers. The Exhibits Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 fully corroborates the revealed deficiency in service on the part of the OP service providers. The rebuttal defense in which the OP have opted ‘refuge’ is still the more amusing. Instead of having ‘suo-moto’ refunded the excess deposited amount duly revealed as a result of ‘internal inquiry’ its return was still being contested and that too on flimsy and legally immature grounds. No doubt, it has been the prerogative of the OP corporation as to how to deal with the alleged ‘misconduct’ committed by its employees but for certain the consumer rights of the general Public can not be allowed to be bruised and/ or to be put at stake and that too at the face of the complaint under the very Act. Lastly, we hold the OP service providers ‘guilty’ of deficiency in service and thus liable to an adverse ‘award’ under the Act.

8.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the titled opposite parties to refund the entire excess amount out of the receipt of Rs.1,29,250/- (on 03.05.2012) besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation for having caused un-necessary harassment to the complainant and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.             

                                                                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                        President

ANNOUNCED:                                        (Jagdeep Kaur)

May 11 2015.                                                       Member                         

*MK*