Makhan Singh filed a consumer case on 20 Oct 2008 against Sub Divisional Officer, in the Moga Consumer Court. The case no is CC/08/79 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Punjab
Moga
CC/08/79
Makhan Singh - Complainant(s)
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer, - Opp.Party(s)
20 Oct 2008
ORDER
distt.consumer moga district consumer forum,moga consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/79
Makhan Singh
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sub Divisional Officer, Bhola Singh, J.E
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Jagmohan Singh Chawla 2. Sh.Jit Singh Mallah
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 79 of 2008 Instituted On: 15.07.2008 Date of Service: 07.08.2008 Decided On: 21.10.2008 Makhan Singh (aged 65 years) son of Kartar Singh son of Bagga Singh, resident of village: Manuke, Tehsil: Nihal Singh Wala, Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its SDO, Smadh Bhai, Distt.Moga. 2. Bhola Singh, Junior Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Smadh Bhai, Distt.Moga. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member. Present: Sh.Harminder Singh, Adv.counsel for complainant. Sh.R.K.Goyal, Adv. counsel for the OPs. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Makhan Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Punjab State Electricity Board through its SDO, Smadh Bhai and others-opposite parties (herein-after referred to as Board) directing them to shift tubewell electric connection bearing no.DMK-1540 installed in his land situated at village: Manuke Gill, Tehsil: Nihal Singh Wala, Distt.Moga and also to pay compensation for causing mental tension and harassment. 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Makhan Singh complainant is a consumer of the OPs-Board having tubewell electric connection bearing account no.DMK-1540 installed in his agricultural land situated at village: Manuke Gill, Tehsil: Nihal Singh Wala, Distt.Moga. That the complainant moved an application with the OPs-Board for the transfer of his aforesaid tubewell connection in his other land. That the XEN Bagha Purana of the OPs-Board prepared estimate in this regard and they got deposited Rs.5000/- on 3.6.2008 from the complainant for the shifting of the tubewell connection in question. Thereafter, Bhola Singh, Junior Engineer demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- from him. That the OPs-Board again made new estimate of Rs.96818/- and directed the complainant to deposit the said amount so that new transformer can be installed for shifting his tubewell connection. That the complainant was unable to deposit such huge amount. That the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board time and again and requested to shift his tubewell connection in question, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed compensation. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.R.K.Goyal Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands, rather has concealed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint. On merits, it was averred that the complainant had applied for shifting of the tubewell connection and deposited Rs.5000/- on 3.6.2008 vide receipt no. 583/80797 as advance fee. It was further averred that on the application moved by the complainant, a deposit estimate no.83190 of 2008-2009 for Rs.96818/- was sanctioned on 4.7.2008 and thereafter, memo no.1440 dated 10.7.2008 was issued to the complainant to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.91818/- so that the work for shifting of his tubewell connection can be started. But the complainant did not deposit the requisite amount. However, instead of depositing the impugned amount of sanctioned estimate, the complainant erected a new LT line and changed the same into 11 KV electric line wrongly, illegally and without permission of the authority of the OPs-Board. When this wrongful act came to the knowledge of the OPs-Board, they immediately issued a letter no. 1446 dated 14.7.2008, but instead of giving the reply of that memo, the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Forum. That no employee of the OPs-Board ever demanded illegal gratification from the complainant. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, copy of motor connection Ex.A3, copy of receipt Ex.A4, copy of jamabandi Ex.A5 and closed his evidence. 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit of Sh.D.S.Toor, Senior XEN and Sh. Sukhdev Singh SDO Ex.R1, copy of sketch Ex.R2, copies of letter Ex.R3 and Ex.R4, copy of sanction letter Ex.R5, copy of history of case Ex.R6, copy of another sketch Ex.R7, copy of detail Ex.R8, copy of letter Ex.R9 and closed their evidence. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Harminder Singh ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.R.K.Goyal ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 7. Sh.Harminder Singh ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OPs-Board has failed to shift the tubewell connection of the complainant and thereby committed deficiency in service. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. Admittedly, the complainant had tubewell connection bearing no.DMK-1540 installed in his agricultural land situated at village: Manuke Gill, Tehsil: Nihal Singh Wala, Distt.Moga. It is also admitted that the complainant had applied for shifting of the tubewell connection and deposited Rs.5000/- on 3.6.2008 vide receipt no. 583/80797 as advance fee. Thereafter, the OPs-Board has given him deposit estimate no.83190 of 2008-2009 for Rs.96818/- dated 4.7.2008 and thereafter, memo no.1440 dated 10.7.2008 was issued to the complainant to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.91818/- (Rs.96818/- minus Rs.5000/- already deposited as advance fee) so that the work for shifting of his tubewell connection can be started. But the complainant did not deposit the requisite amount. However, instead of depositing the impugned amount of sanctioned estimate, the complainant erected a new LT line and changed the same into 11 KV electric line wrongly, illegally and without permission of the authority of the OPs-Board. When this wrongful act came to the knowledge of the OPs-Board, they immediately issued a letter no. 1446 dated 14.7.2008 to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.91818/-, but he failed to do so. As the complainant has failed to deposit the requisite amount of Rs.91818/- as per the estimate prepared by the OPs-Board, the OPs-Board did not shift his tubewell connection as prayed for. Therefore, the OPs-Board was justified in not shifting his tubewell connection in another land owned and possessed by the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board by not shifting the tubewell connection of the complainant due to aforesaid reasons. 8. To prove the aforesaid contentions, the OPs-Board has produced joint affidavit of Sh.D.S.Toor, Senior XEN and Sh. Sukhdev Singh SDO Ex.R1, copy of sketch Ex.R2, copies of letter Ex.R3 and Ex.R4, copy of sanction letter Ex.R5, copy of history of case Ex.R6, copy of another sketch Ex.R7, copy of detail Ex.R8, copy of letter Ex.R9. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on affidavits Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 of the complainant and other documents Ex.A3 to Ex.A5. 9. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order shall be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room. (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:21.10.2008. hrg*