State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs Sh. Pargat Singh on 1 July, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1335 of 2013
Date of institution : 05.12.2013
Date of decision : 01.07.2015
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office at Patiala,
through its Sr. Executive Engineer (Distribution), City Division,
Barnala.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Sub
Divisional Officer, Sub Division No.2, Dhanaula, District
Barnala.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Pargat Singh son of Sh. Ranjit Singh, Resident of Village Harigarh,
Tehsil and District Barnala.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
15.10.2013 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Shri A.K. Sharma, Advocate
For the respondent : Ex parte
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellants/opposite parties have preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.10.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Pargat Singh, First Appeal No.1335 of 2013 2 respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to release the connection to him under ARTC scheme by taking his option and accepting the amount of Rs.500/- and to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs.5,000/-, jointly and severally.
2. The complainant alleged, in his complaint, that his father Ranjit Singh applied for obtaining the electric connection of 5 HP motor for agriculture land measuring 27 Kanals 8 Marlas, situated in the revenue limits of village Harigarh, in the year 1992, by depositing Rs.120/- with Punjab State Electricity Board, vide receipt No.64 dated 31.03.1992. The said Board has since been bifurcated and the electricity supply now vests with the opposite parties. Ranjit Singh died on 20.08.1997 and the said land was inherited by himself and his mother Baldev Kaur. Baldev Kaur also expired and the mutation of her inheritance has already been sanctioned in his favour on 16.11.2009 and, as such, has become full-fledged owner of the said land. The opposite parties, in gross violation of the law and facts, have released the agriculture connections in this village to a number of persons; namely, Mohinder Singh son of Gurnam Singh, Darshan Singh son of Kartar Singh, Jeet Singh son of Chand Singh and Tara Singh son of Hardayal Singh, by getting Rs.500/- deposited afresh from them in the beginning of 2012, just before the Punjab Assembly Elections. No notice was ever issued to him for depositing Rs.500/- afresh. Now the opposite parties are refusing to accept that amount and release the electric connection in his favour; though he met the concerned officers and made a request to that effect. This act on the First Appeal No.1335 of 2013 3 part of the opposite parties amounts to negligence and deficiency in service; as a result of which he suffered mental agony and a loss of Rs.50,000/-. He prayed for the issuance of directions to the opposite parties to pay that amount to him and to release the connection in his favour.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply before the District Forum. In the written reply, they did not dispute that Ranjit Singh applied for connection for electric motor of 5 HP regarding the land mentioned in the complaint and that after the death of Ranjit Singh and his wife, the complainant has become full-fledged owner of that land. They also did not dispute that the persons, mentioned in the complaint and who are residents of the same village, were given the connections after getting Rs.500/- deposited from them afresh. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they averred that the Government had announced a scheme for the farmers, who had deposited the security of Rs.120/- upto 31.12.1992 and as per that scheme, the consumers, who deposited the processing charges of Rs.500/- and opted for ARTC scheme, were given the tubewell connections and as per that scheme, those connections were to be installed upto 12.12.2011. The complainant did not deposit the processing charges of Rs.500/- and, as such, did not opt for that scheme; though the same was very much within his knowledge. The complaint has been filed by him with malafide intention and is abuse of the process of law. He has concealed the material facts and is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint. No cause of action has First Appeal No.1335 of 2013 4 accrued to him to file the same and is not maintainable. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. They prayed for the dismissal thereof with costs.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties, as the respondent/complainant did not appear before the Commission, in-spite of his service and was proceeded against ex parte. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the District Forum totally ignored the evidence produced by the opposite parties, while recording findings in favour of the complainant. It travelled beyond its jurisdiction, by itself laying down the law that the opposite parties were duty bound to prepare the list of the persons, who were entitled to the benefit of the scheme, in question, and that a letter to that effect was required to be sent to the complainant for depositing Rs.500/- afresh. The scheme was given due publicity and was got published in the newspaper also. There was no requirement of giving individual notice of that scheme to the complainant and to write a letter to him to deposit Rs.500/-. Due procedure was followed and it cannot be held that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; as the complainant never opted for the scheme by depositing Rs.500/-; First Appeal No.1335 of 2013 5 though he had full knowledge thereof and that fact stands proved from the evidence produced by the opposite parties.
7. In view of the discussion which is to follow, we find ourselves unable to endorse the findings and the observations recorded by the District Forum. The District Forum could not have added from its own side the conditions in the scheme, so issued by the Government/ opposite parties, and it was only required to see, if the procedure laid down for giving the publicity to the scheme was followed or not? Without any evidence on the record, it recorded the findings in favour of the complainant, by observing that the officers/ officials of the opposite parties were required to prepare the list of the persons, who were to be effected by the scheme and who had deposited the security of Rs.120/- before 31.12.1992 and that they should have sent letters to them. It was required to record findings on the basis of the evidence produced before it, by keeping in mind the law, rules and regulations on the subject. It failed to perform its duty and, in order to give undue benefit to the complainant, recorded the findings against the evidence, law, rules and regulations.
8. In support of the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.C-5. He did not depose in that affidavit that he had no knowledge of the scheme, so issued by the Government, for the release of the tubewell connections under ARTC (Accelerated Release of Tubewell Connections). Rather, from his affidavit, it transpires that he had knowledge of that scheme; as according to him, his co-villagers were given the connections after getting Rs.500/- deposited from them. He even First Appeal No.1335 of 2013 6 proved on record affidavit of one of such persons; namely, Darshan Singh, as Ex.C-1. It is the specific case of the opposite parties, pleaded in the written reply, that he had the knowledge of the scheme and failed to deposit Rs.500/- as per that scheme. To prove that fact, they tendered in evidence affidavit of Deepinder Partap, S.D.O., Ex.R-1. He deposed in that affidavit that the scheme was well within the knowledge of the complainant, but he failed to deposit the processing charges of Rs.500/- and did not opt for the same. That scheme was proved on record as Ex.R-3. The opposite parties also proved on record the Advertisement, Ex.R-4, which was got published in the newspaper. Public notice was duly given about ARTC scheme and all those persons, who had applied for the tubewell connections upto 31.12.1996 and were waiting for the demand notices, were asked to deposit the processing fee of Rs.500/- in the concerned Sub Division for getting the tubewell connection under that scheme. All this evidence was ignored by the District Forum, for the reasons best known to it. When the complainant did not opt for the scheme in-spite of having full knowledge thereof, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not giving the tubewell connection under that scheme. The complainant was to become eligible for the scheme, only after he deposited Rs.500/- as processing charges. In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the District Forum cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.
First Appeal No.1335 of 2013 7
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
10. The sum of Rs.2,500/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
11. The arguments in this case were heard on 29.06.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER July 01, 2015 (Gurmeet S)