State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs Dilbagh Singh S/O Sh. Hardial Singh, on 19 January, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1362 of 2011
Date of institution : 8.9.2011
Date of Decision : 19.1.2012
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (P.S.P.C.L.) through its
Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala, Punjab.
2. Senior Executive Engineer (Rural), P.S.P.C.L., Power House, G.T. Road,
Moga, Punjab.
3. S.D.O., P.S.P.C.L., Badhni Kalan, Tehsil and District Moga, Punjab.
....Appellants.
Versus
Dilbagh Singh s/o Sh. Hardial Singh, R/o Village Dhoorkot Kalan, Tehsil and
District Moga, Punjab.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 11.8.2011 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Moga.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Dilbagh Singh, in person.
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the appellants-PSPCL (hereinafter called 'the appellants') against the order dated 11.8.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the execution application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of the respondent/complainant(hereinafter called 'the respondent') was allowed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the respondent Hardial Singh had applied for tubewell electric connection with the appellants vide application No. 6065 dated 28.6.1986 by depositing Rs. 260/- vide receipt No. 198/31808. Later his father died on 24.11.2007. The respondent had obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from other legal First Appeal No. 1362 of 2011 2 heirs of his father regarding the release of the tubewell connection in his name. The respondent had come to know that the persons, who applied later than Hardial Singh had been issued tubewell electric connection but the connection has not been released in his father's name. Due to non- release of the electric tubewell connection, the respondent had suffered financial loss due to non-irrigation of his land. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellants may be directed to release the electric tubewell connection immediately to him or compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-may be granted on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The appellants replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable, complaint was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, respondent has no locus-standi to file the complaint, the complaint was time-barred. On merits, it was pleaded that Hardial Singh applied for electric tubewell connection of 3 BHP motor under general category on 28.6.1986. Thereafter, as per scheme under ARPC in 1988, Hardial Singh got changed his application from general category to that scheme and deposited Rs. 120/- on 17.5.1988 vide receipt No. 241/078816. His application was filed at serial No. 46. In 1988, most of the record of appellant No. 3 office was destroyed in flood and by white aunt/termite and only entry register and receipt book were available. It was denied that any electric connection was issued under ARPC scheme to the junior of Hardial Singh and if any, the respondent should give strict proof of the same. The complaint was time barred as Hardial Singh died on 24.11.2007 and the complaint was filed after the lapse of three years of the death of Hardial Singh nor any intimation regarding the death of Hardial Singh was given. There was no deficiency in service on their part as the record was totally destroyed/damaged. It was denied that the respondent First Appeal No. 1362 of 2011 3 had suffered any financial loss and pleaded that the respondent had irrigated his land by using other sources. The respondent had not produced copy of the jamabandies and khasra girdawaries regarding the loss of his crop, as such, he was not entitled for any compensation. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.
4. During the course of arguments, compromise has been arrived between the parties. As per compromise, the appellants will issue the duplicate demand notice to the respondent on the submission of the NOC by the respondent from the legal heirs of Hardial Singh and thereafter, connection will be released by the appellants within three months from the submission of the test report alongwith other usual charges. As per the above compromise, the complaint was disposed off on 6.12.2010.
5. In compliance with the order dated 6.12.2010, the respondent had submitted the required documents vide registered post dated 31.1.2011 which contains affidavit alongwith NOC, death certificate, his own affidavit as well as affidavit of his brother Shamsher Singh and other relevant documents. But inspite of submitting the required documents, the appellants failed to release the connection to the respondent and intimated vide letter dated 8.3.2011 that they had sent his case for approval of the higher authority. Thereafter again the respondent approached the appellants number of times for the release of the electric tubewell connection but of no use.
6. The appellants replied to the pleadings of the respondent and stated that the respondent had failed to comply with the order dated 6.12.2010 and not supplied the copy of NOC and mutation of legal heirs of Hardial Singh. It was pleaded that as and when the respondent fulfill the formalities, the connection will be released to him. First Appeal No. 1362 of 2011 4
7. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, allowed the complaint and the appellants were directed to release the tubewell connection of 3 BHP in the name of Dilbagh Singh-respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. The legal heirs of Karnail Singh son of Hardial Singh can separately apply for the tubewell connection of 2 BHP as and when required by them.
8. Hence, the appeal by the appellants.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as of respondent, in person.
10. The appellants have challenged the order of the District Forum on the grounds that on the basis of wrong information submitted by the respondent regarding the legal heirs of Kirpal Singh, the District Forum vide order dated 11.8.2011 directed the appellants to release the tubewell connection of 3 BHP to the respondent, the respondent had not approached the Executing Court with clean hands, suppressed the material facts and produced fabricated documents, the order of the District Forum is not justified and as per the statement of Raghvir Kaur widow of Karnail Singh(deceased) s/o Hardial Singh the same is liable to be set- aside.
11. It is admitted case of both the parties that the respondent had filed complaint No. 190 dated 29.9.2010, which was decided on 6.12.2010. The order dated 6.12.2010 is reproduced:-
"During the course of arguments, both the parties have decided to resolve the dispute amicably. In this regard, Sh. Bakhshish Singh, SDO, Badhni Kalan, Sub Division has made separate statement to the effect that PSPCL will issue duplicate demand notice to the complainant on the submission of NOC from the legal heirs of Hardial Singh and the connection will be released by the OPs-PSPCL, Badhni Kalan within 3 First Appeal No. 1362 of 2011 5 months from the date of submission of test report alongwith other usual charges. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant vide his statement has agreed with the statement of Sh. Bakhshish Singh, SDO and also stated that the complaint may be disposed off accordingly.
In view of the aforesaid statements of the parties, the complaint is disposed off accordingly. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record room."
12. No appeal against the said order was preferred by any of the party, as such, that order attained finality.
13. On non-compliance of the order dated 6.12.2010 of the District Forum, the respondent/decree holder filed execution application for the implementation of the order dated 6.12.2010, which was contested by the appellants in the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 11.8.2007 directed the appellants to release the tubewell connection of 3 BHP in the name of Dilbagh Singh s/o Hardial Singh within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. It was also ordered to the appellants to release the tubewell connection of 2 BHP to the legal heirs of Karnail Singh s/o Hardial Singh separately when they applied for the same.
14. The version of the counsel for the appellants is that as per the order in the complaint, the respondent has to submit 'N.O.C.' from the legal heir of Hardial Singh for the release of tubewell connection.
15. It is admitted fact between the parties that the deceased Hardial Singh father of the respondent applied for the tubewell connection with the appellants, who died before the release of the same. The respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum for the release of the tubewell connection against application No. 6065 dated 28.6.1986, which was filed by Hardial Singh(deceased) for the tubewell connection of 5 BHP and died on 24.11.2007 before the release of the tubewell connection against the said application.
First Appeal No. 1362 of 2011 6
16. It is also not disputed that Hardial Singh deceased had three sons, namely, Kirpal Singh, Dilbagh Singh and Shamsher Singh. Kirpal Singh died on 9.11.2008. Smt. Raghvir Kaur (widow), Gurpreet Kaur(daughter) and Lakhbir Singh (son) are the legal heirs of deceased Kirpal Singh.
17. The respondent had submitted the affidavit of his brother Shamsher Singh that he has 'no objection' if the tubewell connection applied by his father vide application No. 6065 dated 28.6.1986 is allotted/released to his brother Dilbagh Singh but he had not submitted any 'NOC' from the legal heirs of Kirpal Singh and only submitted the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Village Dhurkot Kalan, Moga duly signed by Nirmal Singh, Sarpanch that the legal heirs of Kirpal Singh are not residing in their village rather they are residing abroad. But the version of the appellants in the appeal is that this version of the respondent as well as the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat that the legal heirs of deceased Kirpal Singh i.e. brother of respondent Dilbagh Singh are residing abroad was not correct and on the basis of such forged documents the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside. The appellants annexed Annexure A-4 i.e. application filed by Raghvir Kaur widow of Kirpal Singh vide which she had made the request to the concerned S.D.O., Badni Kalan, Sub Division for non-release of the tubewell connection against application No. 6065 dated 28.6.1986 to the respondent. On the basis of the same, the tubewell connection was not released by the appellants to the respondent.
18. Now the only question before us to decide is whether the appellants can release the tubewell connection to the respondent i.e. legal heir of deceased Hardial Singh, who had applied for the tubewell connection with the appellants and died before the release of the same? First Appeal No. 1362 of 2011 7
19. To decide this issue, Commercial Circular No. 60 of 2007 of the appellants-Corporation is applicable to the facts of the present case/dispute, which is reproduced as under:-
"Sub.:- Release of Tubewell connection on priority under genuine family partition/division landed property.
The instructions were issued vide CC No. 43/07 dated 20.8.07 according to which splitting of tubewell connections allowed vide CC No. 38/03 (ESR No. 326.2) had been withdrawn with immediate effect. However, to avoid hardships to the farmers, the priority for release of one tubewell connection to each legal heir under genuine family partition/division of landed property as a result of family partition under the provisions of Land Revenue Act 1887 or as a result of inheritance (ESR 13.6.11) was allowed by relaxing ban imposed vide fax 12.4.02 on the issue of demand notices under this priority. This priority had been allowed up to release of connection.
Field offices have requested to clarify as to how the release of tubewell connections to the legal heirs under genuine family partition/division of landed property as a result of family partition, is to be regulated as per already prescribed roster.
In this connection, it is clarified that the priority under genuine family partition/division of landed property as a result of family partition allowed vide CC No. 43/07 dated 20.8.07 is fixed at Sr. No. 'X' in the roster as under:
i) 1st General Category.
ii) 2nd General Category.
iii) 3rd General Category.
iv) 4th "Sem" Area Priority.
v) 5th Ex.-serviceman
vi) 6th Kandi Area Priority
vii) 7th Gram Panchayat Priority
viii) 8th Drip/Sprinkler System Priority
ix) 9th Priority across the Ravi River
x) 10th Priority under family partition to each legal heir.
xi) 11th General Category & so on.
The compliance of above instructions may please be ensured."
20. From the above circular of the appellants, it is clear that each legal heir is entitled for the release of tubewell connection and the First Appeal No. 1362 of 2011 8 appellants have to release one tubewell connection to each legal heir under genuine family partition/division of landed property as a result of family partition under Land Revenue Act, 1887 or as a result of inheritance.
21. There is no dispute that the respondent is a legal heir i.e. son of deceased Hardial Singh, who had applied for tubewell connection to the appellants and as per the above circular he is entitled for the release of tubewell connection as a legal heir of the applicant, as such, there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and the same is affirmed/upheld. However, as per the above circular, the remaining legal heir of the deceased Hardial Singh applicant are also entitled for the release of the tubewell connection, if so desire.
22. The officials of the appellants are well aware regarding the above circular, which was issued by the Board/Corporation but only to harass the respondent, the tubewell electric connection was not released to the respondent. Even this circular was not brought to the notice of the Commission by the appellants, as such, the appeal being without any merit is dismissed with costs of Rs. 6,000/-. The said amount be recovered from appellants No. 2 & 3. Order be complied within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order.
22. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.1.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
January 19, 2012. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member