Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/128

Gurwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman, PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sarbjit Singh

10 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No :       128

Date of Institution : 18.09.2014

Date of Decision :   10.02.2015

 

Gurwinder Singh aged about 32 years s/o Harnek Singh r/o Village Dana Roamana, PO Kameana District Faridkot.

                                                                                    ...Complainant

Versus

1. The Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation, (Powercom), Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Sub Division, Sadiq, Faridkot.

3. Vijender Vinayak, AEE (Distribution),Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Sadiq, Distt Faridkot.

                                                              ....Opposite Parties(Ops)

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

                Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

                Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh S S Brar, Adv Ld Counsel for complainant,

   Sh M S Brar, Adv Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(ORDER)

(A K Mehta, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/OPs seeking directions to Ops to issue Tubewell connection as per notice dt 13.02.2014 and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs 75,000/-for causing harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and Rs 5500/-as cost of litigation expenses.

2                                 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Gurdev Singh s/o Sucha Singh under the scheme of 1 to 2.5 acre at first priority deposited security vide receipt no. 532 dt 26.03.1992 and later on, security was altered in the name of complainant vide receipt no 482 worth Rs 1000/-; that OP-2 issued demand notice no. 798 dt 13.02.2014 in reference to application dt 26.03.1992 for installation of said connection and on 26.02.2014 complainant submitted report in the office of OP-2 and 3 after completing all the formalities, but to harass the complainant, OP-3 demanded bribe for issuing the said connection and when complainant denied to pay bribe, OP-3 refused to issue the connection in arbitrary manner; that OP-3 has intentionally refused to issue the connection applied more than 22 years ago by manipulating the official record and threatened the complainant showing his personal weapon and OP-3 having official and political influence, issued the connection to other farmers of the same locality, who applied at the same time, thus, Ops committed  gross negligence in service and have wasted precious time and energy in approaching OPs; that act and conduct of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and due to this act of the OPs, complainant has suffered great harassment and mental agony for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay compensation to the tune of Rs 75,000/-for causing harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and Rs 5500/-as litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, this complaint.

   3                                  Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 19.09.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that present complaint is not filed against PSPCL, rather it is filed against the employees of PSPCL and is not maintainable; that OP-3 has not rendered any service to the complainant in his individual capacity and there is no privity of contract between complainant and OP-3 and complainant is not consumer of OP-3 and has not paid any consideration to OP-3, therefore, complaint against OP-3 is not maintainable. However, on merits, Ops admitted that demand notice no. 798 dt 13.02.2014 was issued to complainant but denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that Sh Gurdev Singh applied for Tubewell connection of 3 BHP connections  with 2.318 KW load and deposited Rs 120/- vide receipt no 78/387 dt 26.03.1999 and A&A form submitted by him was registered at Sr No. 19992 dt 26.03.1992 and also gave self declaration that he has one acre to 2.5 acres of land in Punjab; that Sh Gurdev Singh gave another self declaration that he has deposited Rs 120/-for taking connection in Khasra no. 734; that he has sold the land to Sh Gurwinder Singh and his security and application may be changed int he name of Gurwinder Singh; that Sh Gurwinder Singh purchased the land measuring 15 kanal for Rs 7,50,000/-alongwith motor and security vide registered sale deed dt 19.06.2008 and submitted A&A form for the change of name and applied for 5 BHP motor and deposited Rs 1000/- vide receipt no. BA-16-480/11537 dt 9.05.2011 alongwith application dated nil that Sh Gurdev Singh deposited Rs 120/- on 26.03.1992 for taking connection in general category; that security and application was changed in the name of complainant; that Sh Gurdev Singh gave option for releasing connection under 2.5 acre priority category, but complainant never gave option that his connection may be converted under the priority category scheme 2.5 acre category; that demand notice no. 798 dt 13.02.2014 was issued wrongly to the complainant, but when this fact that complainant has not applied under 2.5 acre priority category, came to the notice of OPs, the said demand notice was cancelled and application of complainant was kept in general category and intimation to this effect was already given to the complainant vide registered notice issued vide memo no 1922 dt 22.10.2014; that  question of demanding bribe does not arise at all as complainant failed to give the option within stipulated period, therefore, all the Tubewell connections are issued strictly as per seniority list maintained in the office as per rules and regulations of PSPCL and connection to the complainant would be released on ripening of his turn; that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                              Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-12 and closed the same.

6                      In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Balwinder Gurjant Singh AAE Ex.OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-15 and closed the evidence.

7                    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on file.

8                            Ld Counsel for the complainant contended that Gurdev Singh s/o Sucha Singh applied for electric Tubewell connection and deposited security vide receipt no.532 dt 26.03.1992. He contended that later on complainant purchased the land from Gurdev Singh alongwith intended Tubewell connection and applied to the OP alongwith required fee vide receipt no 482 for transfer of application for Tubewell connection in the name of complainant and accordingly, application was transferred in the name of complainant. He contended that OP issued a demand notice dated 13.02.2014 Ex C-3 to the complainant but inspite of repeated requests and visits to Ops by complainant, Tubewell connection has not been released to the complainant. He contended that the act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and it has also caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complainant is also entitled to compensation on this account. He contended that complaint is required to be allowed and OP is required to be directed to issue Tubewell connection to the complainant and to pay compensation and litigation expenses as claimed in the complaint.

9                                                  The ld counsel for OPs contended that  Gurdev Singh was owner of land and he applied for issuance of Tubewell connection vide application dated 26.03.1992 Ex OP-2. He contended that GurdevSingh applied for Tubewell electric connection under general category and deposited the fee but later on, Gurdev Singh applied priority as he was holding less than 5 acres of land and accordingly, priority was given to the Gurdev Singh. He contended that later on Gurdev Singh sold part of his land to complainant Gurwinder Singh vide sale deed dt 19.06.2008 Ex OP-10, but priority cannot be transferred exactly as priority is to be claimed by the complainant by supplying requisite documents and evidence, but the complainant has not filed the affidavit to show that he was holding no other land nor have any Tubewell connection and as such, has not complied with the conditions for issuance of priority Tubewell connection. He also contended that complainant is not the consumer of Ops as he is only an intended consumer as he has only applied for issuance of Tubewell connection but the connection has not been installed so far and as such, complainant is not availing services of the Ops. He also contended that complaint has not been filed against the Punjab State Power Corporation, but only against the employee of the Power State Power Corporation, which is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. He further contended that demand notice has been wrongly issued to the complainant and accordingly, the same was cancelled later on and as such, complainant is not entitled to Tubewell electric connection on priority basis. He supported his arguments with case titled B J P Starch Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors 1998 (I) Consumer Protection Judgments page 504, Prabhu Dutt Sharma Vs Proprietor/Manager, Khwaja Gas Agency 1992 (II) Consumer Protection Judgments page 570, SITARAM YADAV Vs RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER 1995 (II) Consumer Protection Judgments page 228, The Asstt. Engineer, RSEB, Churu & Ors Vs Kesari Chand 1995 (II) Consumer Protection Judgments page 04, M Ahmed-Ul-Haq Vs Asstt Engineer, K.E.B. Chamarajanagar & Ors 1991(II) Consumer Protection Judgments page 455, Kushal Singh Vs Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Ors 1993 (II) Consumer Protection Judgments page 840, Additional Chief Engineer Vs Ramalingam (N.C.D.R.C.) 1993(II) Consumer Protection Judgments page 255 National Commission. He further contended that Hon’ble Natioanl Green Tribunal, New Delhi has also ordered status quo regarding issuance of new Tubewell connection in Punjab and as such, tube connection cannot be issued to the complainant. He contended that complaint is false and without merits and is liable to be dismissed.

10                                           It is admitted fact in this case that Gurdev Singh was previously owner of the land and he applied for Tubewell electric connection vide application no. 19992 dated 26.03.1992 Ex OP-2. It is also admitted fact that Gurdev Singh claimed priority as he was having less than 5 acres of land. It is also admitted fact that Gurdev Sing sold the land to complainant Gurwinder Singh and lateron application for issuance of Tubewell electric connection was transferred in the name of complainant/Gurwinder Singh. It is also admitted fact that Ops issued demand notice Ex C-3 on 13.02.2014 in the name of Gurwinder Singh though it was contended on behalf of OP that this demand notice was wrongly issued and was cancelled lateron as requisite documents were not furnished by the complainant. Contention of the complainant is that the concerned SDO was demanding illegal gratification, which was not complied with by the complainant and due to this reason, Tubewell electric connection was not issued through complainant had furnished all the requisite documents and affidavit. This Forum is of the opinion that demand notice has been rightly issued in favour of complainant as complainant got transferred the tube well electric connection from name of Gurdev Singh to his name by deposit of requisite fee vide receipt Ex C-2. Moreover, priority was also claimed by the complainant Gurwinder Singh and Gurwinder Singh furnished report Ex C-4 showing that he was holding 2 ½ acres of land as per report of the Tehsildar made on application Ex C-4, moreover, complainant also filed affidavit Ex C-5 to this effect. Letter Ex C-10 shows that OP cancelled the demand notice on the ground that complainant has not exercised any option for priority on the ground of holding less land. However, this contention of the OP is wrong as complainant has also exercised option for priority on the basis of holding less land as he filed report of the Tehsildar Ex C-4, affidavit Ex C-5 and as such, demand notice has been illegally and wrongly cancelled by the OP. Otherwise, this Forum is of the view that complainant has not become the consumer under the Ops as electric tube well connection has not been issued in the name of complainant so far and as such, it cannot be said that complainant was availing the services of Ops. He can be termed only as intended consumer by making application for issuance of electric tube well connection alongwith requisite fee for this purpose but so far has not deposited the total amount for issuance of electric tube well connection. This was so held in case titled Addl Chief Engineer and others Vs Ramalingam supra by the Hon’ble National Commission. Even in case titled as Kushal Singh Vs Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Ors (supra) complaint was filed for seeking direction for release of electric tube well connection and question arose whether such direction can be issued by the Consumer Forum and it was held in negative and it was observed that only those reliefs can be granted which are enumerated in Section 14 (1) of the Act and not beyond that. The same proposition  of law held in case titled M Ahmed-Ul-Haq Vs Asstt Engineer, K.E.B. Chamarajanagar & Ors (supra), The Assistant Engineer, RSEB, Churu & Ors Vs Kesari Chand, Prabhu Dutt Sharma Vs Proprietor/Manager, Khwaja Gas Agency, SITARAM YADAV Vs RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER and titled B J P Starch Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors (supra). Otherwise also, the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi has passed order dated 5.03.2014 directing to maintain status quo with regard to issuance of electric tube well connection and in this view of the matter, the Opposite Party is unable to release tube well connection in favour of complainant.

11                                            Therefore, in the light of above discussion, complainant is not entitled for direction to the Ops for release of electric tube well connection and complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, in view of peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 10.02.2015

 

                   Member                    Member                 President                     (Parampal Kaur)       (P Singla)                 (A K Mehta)