Complainant Waryam Chand vide 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  release the tubewell connection in his favour. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and torture, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that his father namely Tulsi Ram son of Sh. Khushi Ram had applied for tubewell connection with the opposite party no.3 vide application No.57055 dated 09.03.2006. His father completed all the required formalities for releasing tube well connection by paying fee of Rs.1100/- vide receipt No.369 dated 09.03.2006. Demand notice bearing No.259 dated 20.2.2014 had also been issued to his father. Unfortunately, on 9.5.2014 his father expired and as such he did not deposit the amount of demand notice of Rs.1,33,227/- as installation charges of the tubewell connection. His father during his life time executed registered will in his favour and he is entitled to get the tubewell connection in his name being legal heirs of deceased Tulsi Ram and he is ready to fulfill all the required formalities for release of tubewell connection and also ready to deposit the abovesaid demanded amount. He has next pleaded that after his father’s death, he approached the opposite party no.3 and requested him to release the tubewell connection as per application No.57055 dated 9.3.2006 but he put the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to release the same in his favour. Hence this complaint.

 3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the present complaint with the intention to harass the opposite parties; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts intentionally, deliberately; the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; the complainant is not consumer to the opposite parties   and  the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the father of the complainant applied for tubewell connection and the opposite parties issued the demand notice but father of the complainant did not deposit the amount of the demand notice within the prescribed period. Then the opposite parties issued two reminder letters to the consumer for the compliance of the demand notice, but no written representation was presented by the consumer. So the opposite parties cancelled his application for tubewell connection. It has next submitted that the opposite parties can release the tubewell connection to the complainant, if the complainant fulfill the terms and conditions of the opposite parties like transfer the agriculture land in his name i.e. not less than 1 Killa and deposit the revival fee of the demand notice, no objection and undertaking from the other co-sharers forgetting the tubewell connection in his name etc. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 4.      Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.C1 and of Kishno Devi Ex.CW-2/A, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C2 to Ex.C10.

5.     Alongwith the written statement, the opposite parties has filed affidavit of Sh.Hirdeypal Singh Bajwa S.D.O. PSPCLtd. Ex.OP-1.

6.     Written arguments have been filed by both the parties.

7.    We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; written arguments by both the parties; oral 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.

8.       As detailed above, the present complaint is regarding non- release of agricultural tubewell connection to the complainant by opposite parties.

9.     As per Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 a demand notice dated 20.2.2014 and thereafter revised demand notice dated 25.1.2016 has already been issued by opposite party no.3 in the name of father of the complainant. Complainant submitted that due to the death of his father on 9.5.2014, the demand notice could not be complied with. It is alleged by complainant that opposite party has refused to release the said tubewell connection in his name.

10.      Opposite party in their written reply admitted that the demand notice dated 20.2.2014 thereafter a revised demand notice dated 25.1.66 for release the said tubewell connection were issued to the applicant (father of complainant) but no compliance has been made by the applicant within the validity period of demand notice.    It is further stated by opposite party that due to death of the applicant (father of complainant) the present complainant has been asked to complete the required formalities as per rules and regulations of Department. It is also admitted by opposite party that the said tubewell connection can be released by them if the complainant complete the required formalities and submit documents such as transfer of agriculture land not less than 1 killa in the name of complainant, deposit of revival fee of demand notice, no objection of co-sharers etc.

11.        From the above facts of the case, we see that due to death of previous applicant (father of complainant) the revival of demand notice  with change of name is required priorily for which certain formalities as per rules and regulations of the Department are required to be completed by the complainant. As admitted by opposite party, it is understood that tubewell connection can only be released by opposite party if the complainant get the demand notice revived in his name and make the compliance to the renewed/revised demand notice within the stipulated period.

12.      In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint can be best disposed off  by giving directions to both the parties. 

 13.   Hence we direct opposite party to issue a letter to the complainant giving details of documents required for revival and change of name of demand notice within 15 days of the receipt of copy of the orders.

      Complainant is directed to submit all the required documents to opposite party with the period of 30 days from the issue of the letter from opposite party.

           Opposite party is further directed to get the revised demand notice issued to the complainant within period of 60 days from the submission of documents by complainant for its compliance within the stipulated period by the complainant for release of said tubewell connection.

            The present complaint is disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs.

14.       The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

15.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                         

            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                            President    

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

August 17, 2022                                                  Member

*MK*