Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/135

PSEB - Complainant(s)

Versus

Surinder Singh Daroli - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.Taunque

09 Mar 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

              First Appeal No.135 of 2012

                                                     

                                                                                                                                                               Date of Institution  : 03.02.2012

                                                     Date of decision  :    09.03.2015

 

1.   Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its SDO, Dagru, District Moga.

 

2.   Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its XEN (Rural), Power House, G.T.Road, Moga, District Moga.

 

3.   Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director/Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.

 

.....Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Surinder Singh Daroli, Advocate son of Sh. Hardial Singh, resident of Village : Daroli, Bhai, Tehsil & District Moga at present resident of Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Moga, District Moga.

 

...Respondent/Complainant

          First Appeal against the order dated      22.12.2011 passed by the District     Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga.

                                                                  

Quorum:-

 

                   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President

                             Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member

                    Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellants          :         Sh.  B.S.Taunque, Advocate

          For the respondent        :         Sh. Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate

                  

BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER

 

This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 22.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was disposed of by directing the OPs to consider the case of the complainant under general category by following the seniority rule  and to release the AP connection under general category on his turn. The seniority of the complainant was ordered to be determined from the date of registration of the application.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant was residing in his native village at Daroli Bhai where his agriculture land was situated. He was a Non Resident of Indian and shifted to Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Moga, for better educational facilities, about 10 years back. It was pleaded that he, vide application No.23207 dated 5.3.2008, applied for AP connection under OYT scheme with the OPs. In the year 2009, when he was away to USA,  OPs issued Memo No.2807 dated 18.12.2009 on the basis of  instructions issued by Patiala office of PSPCL, which was posted by OP No.1 on 23.12.2009 at his village address and thus failed to mention his address of Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Moga. That letter reached the complainant after the stipulated period fixed by OPs for  compliance of said notice  i.e. after 31.12.2009. As such, he could not comply with the formalities required for the release of the AP connection. Thereafter, the complainant, vide his letter dated 02.08.2011, made a request to the OPs to reconsider his case and release the  connection as he had already dug out the tubewell bore, constructed the room and purchased the electric motor and other accessories by spending Rs. 2 lacs. Moreover, as per the latest instructions No.17.7 (iv) of the PSPCL,  in case period of AP connection has expired, then PSPCL is bound to review its decision, so that the AP connection can be released, but OPs, vide their Memo No.1664 dated 29.8.2011, refused to reconsider his representation. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the OPs to release him the said connection immediately. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs on account of  financial loss, mental tension and harassment caused to him, besides Rs. 5,000/- as costs of litigation was also prayed.

3.       Upon notice, OPs contested the complaint and filed joint written reply pleading therein that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as he is estopped from filing the same. It was pleaded that as per the regulations of the PSPCL, OP No.1 issued Memo No. 2807 dated 18.12.2009 to the complainant which was to be complied upto 31.12.2009 but the complainant failed to do so within the stipulated period and hence his application was cancelled. Later on, amount of Rs.25,000/-, deposited by him against the said application was also refunded vide cheque No.273136. As such, he was not entitled for the release of the said connection. Denying all other allegations, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

4.       Parties lead their evidence, by way of affidavits and documents, before the District Forum, which after going through the same, dismissed  the complaint.

5.       Aggrieved by this order the OPs have come up in appeal on the ground that since the complainant failed to comply with the demand notice or to deposit the required amount as per estimate, his application for release of tubewell connection under OYT Scheme was cancelled. Even the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by him as application fee was also refunded to him vide cheque No.273136, which was duly received by him. Learned District Forum rightly rejected the request of the complainant to release a tubewell connection under the OYT scheme but it erroneously directed OPs to consider his application under general category. Once his application for release of connection under said scheme  stood cancelled and the amount deposited by him was also refunded and accepted by him, no application for release of any tubewell connection was pending under any category in the records of the office of OPs. As such, no direction  could have been issued to the OPs to consider the case of complainant under general category, without any regulation.

6.      We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties, have carefully perused the evidence on record and heard the learned counsel of the parties.

7.       Admittedly, the complainant filed application for release of tubewell connection with the OPs on 5.3.2008 under OYT Scheme, against which a  notice was issued to him by the OPs, vide letter dated 2807 dated 18.12.2009. However, due to non compliance of the said notice by the complainant, his application was cancelled and even the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by him, was also refunded by the OPs. Learned District Forum also did not accede to his request to release him the connection under the said priority scheme but at the same time it directed the OPs to consider his application under 'general category' and to release the tubewell connection as per his turn. Evidently, the application of the complainant was cancelled by OPs as he failed to complete the formalities required for release the tubewell connection, within stipulated period. Thus, the complainant himself was responsible for cancellation of his application. No regulation is  brought on record under which he could have been held entitled to avail connection under general category. After the application given under the OYT scheme was cancelled for non compliance of the demand notice by the complainant, no application was lying pending in the records of the OPs which could be considered under any other category. In such a situation, no direction could have been issued to consider the case of complainant under some other category, more so, when no such prayer was made by the complainant in his complaint. As such, the direction issued by the District Forum without any prayer having been made by complainant and without any regulation in support thereof, is not legally sustainable.  

8.      In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the OPs is allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.

9.       The arguments in this appeal were heard on 26.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

10.     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the court cases.                          

                                           (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                           PRESIDENT

 

                                                       (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)      

MEMBER

 

(SURINDER PAL KAUR)

MEMBER

March 09, 2015