BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 85 of 2008.<br /> Instituted On: 01.08.2008.<br /> Date of Service: 21.08.2008.<br /> Decided On: 10.11.2008.<br /> <br /> Gurmeet Singh (aged 25 years) son of Pritam Singh son of Tota Singh, resident of village: Khosa Pando, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.<br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, North Sub Division, Moga.<br /> 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, North Sub Division, Moga. <br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member. <br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Gurmeet Singh complainant in person.<br /> Sh.S.K.Dhir, Adv. counsel for the OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Gurmeet 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 Secretary (herein-after referred to as “Board’) and others- opposite parties directing them to release tubewell connection in his fields and also to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, the complainant being small farmer has applied for tubewell connection on 22.3.2004 vide receipt no.373 dated 22.3.2004 and deposited Rs.1000/- with the OPs-Board. That the complainant was having only 2½ acres of agricultural land, so he filed the said application under the scheme of Punjab Government vide which the tubewell connections were to be released on priority basis to those farmers who having less than 5 acres of land. That the complainant also completed all other formalities on 26.3.2007 for the release of tubewell connection under the said category. That the OPs-Board has released the tubewell connections under the said category to thousands of farmers in the month of June 2008, but they did not release the tubewell connection to him. That the complainant had requested the OPs-Board time and again for issuing the tubewell connection, 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 Rs.100000/- as compensation beside costs of litigation. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.S.K.Dhir Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. In fact, the complainant applied for tubewell connection under general category on 22.3.2004 and deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- as initial fee and thereafter, on 26.3.2007 he submitted an application alongwith some documents for giving the tubewell connection on priority basis. That as per Commercial Circular no.22/2007, the tubewell connections are to be released to those persons whose test reports are pending as on 31.3.2007. That the complainant has applied for tubewell connection on 22.3.2004 under the general category and thus, his turn has not yet come. Moreover, no demand notice has been issued by the OPs-Board to the complainant, so he is not a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board. On merits, the OPs-Board took the same and similar plea as taken up by them in preliminary objections. 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.<br /> 4. In order to prove their case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.A1, copy of receipt Ex.A2, copy of news paper cutting Ex.A3, copy of letter Ex.A4, copy of affidavit Ex.A5 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Addl.SE Ex.R1, copy of application Ex.R2, copy of affidavit of complainant Ex.R3, copy of circular Ex.R4 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh. Gurmeet Singh complainant and Sh.S.K.Dhir ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.Gurmeet Singh complainant has mainly argued that inspite of completing all the formalities under the scheme of the Punjab Government, the OPs-Board did not release him the tubewell connection in his fields. This contention of the complainant has no merit. <br /> 8. The facts of the case are not disputed that the complainant had applied for tubewell connection under general category on 22.3.2004 and deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- as initial fee vide receipt no.373 dated 22.3.2004. Ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has contended that because the ban has been imposed on issuance of fresh demand notices w.e.f. 12.4.2002 and this ban is continued except for applications registered upto 31.3.1991 under general category, so the case of the complainant has not been covered under the Commercial Circular no.22/2007 of the OPs-Board. It was further contended by ld.counsel for the OPs-Board that the seniority for the release of tubewell connections under general category shall be maintained on the basis from the date of registration of the application. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has full force. Commercial Circular no.22/2007 reads as under:-<br /> “The ban imposed on issue of fresh demand notices w.e.f. 12.4.2002 shall continue except for applicatiosn registered upto 31.3.1991 under general category besides CM’s discretionary quota) 5% of the proposed target of 60000 Nos), Ex-serviceman priority, Kandi Area priority. “Sem” Area priority Gram Panchayat Priority) and Drip/Sprinkler irrigation priority. However, the seniority for release of AP tubewell connections under General Category shall be maintained on the basis of date of registration of the application by the applicants irrespective of the date which the test report has been submitted by the applicant.” <br /> <br /> 9. Admittedly, the complainant has applied for tubewell connection on 22.3.2004 with the OPs-Board vide receipt no.373, so his case has not been covered under the purview of the said category of Commercial Circular no.22/2007. The complainant is therefore, entitled to the release of tubewell connection according to his turn under the general category on the receipt of demand notice.<br /> 10. The complainant and ld. counsel for the OPs-Board did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order shall be supplied to the parties free of costs and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:10.11.2008.<br /> hrg*<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />