State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ... vs Gurmeet Singh on 28 April, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.294 of 2021
Date of institution : 20.08.2021
Reserved on : 25.04.2022
Date of decision : 28.04.2022
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Budhlada
through Sub Divisional Officer, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada,
District Mansa.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through Chairman
Punjab State Poser Corporation Limited Patiala, District Patiala.
.......Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Gurmeet Singh son of Diya Singh, R/o Boha Road, Near
Indersain Chakki, Ward No.8, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada,
District Mansa.
....Respondent/Complainant.
First Appeal U/s 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the Order
dated 05.04.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum (now Commission), Mansa.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No F.A. No.294 of 2021 2 Argued By:-
For the appellants : Sh. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Ishan Thakur, Advocate JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT Appellants/Opposite Parties have approached this Commission by way of filing the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the impugned order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa (in short, "the District Commission") passed in Consumer Complaint No.108 of 2019, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant has been disposed of with the direction to the appellants/OPs to issue fresh demand notice to the respondent/complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is further mentioned that the respondent/complainant is to deposit the fee and to complete the requisite formalities as demanded by the appellants/OPs for the release of tubewell connection within a period of 30 days. The appellants/OPs were also directed to release the tubewell connection on priority basis as per the rules and regulations of the department at the earliest. The compliance of the order was to be made by both the parties in view of the said directions.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred to, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
F.A. No.294 of 2021 3
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the complaint are that the respondent/complainant applied for a tubewell connection which was approved by OP No.2, vide memo dated 01.04.2016. The complainant also deposited an amount of Rs.33,000/- on 04.01.2017 as security as per directions issued by the appellants/OPs. It was further mentioned in the complaint that the Application Form alongwith the Test Report to the OPs were to release the motor connection within a period of three months on priority basis. Thereafter, it was averred that nothing was done on the part of the appellants/OPs and even no demand notice was issued on 08.08.2018. The J.E. of the appellant-department namely Tarsem Singh took the measurement of the site, but still nothing was done which was stated to be case of deficiency of service on the part of OPs.
4. The said complaint filed by respondent/complainant was contested by the appellants/OPs. Certain preliminary objections were also raised that the complaint was not maintainable. It was submitted in the reply of the complaint that the tubewell connections were issued to those applicants who had earlier applied prior to the applications of the complainant. It was further mentioned in the reply that no demarcation dated 08.08.2018 was ever conducted by the appellants/OPs and in respect of notice dated 04.01.2017, issued to the complainant, no amount was paid by the complainant. Thereafter, it was mentioned that in absence of not completing the necessary F.A. No.294 of 2021 4 formalities and also non-payment of requisite fee in respect of demand notice, connection was not issued to the complainant.
5. On appraisal of contents of complaint as well as reply thereof and after hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties, the complaint filed by the complainant was disposed of with certain directions as mentioned above, vide order dated 05.04.2021.
6. Said order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the District Commission is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal filed by the appellants/OPs.
7. There was a delay of 102 days in filing of the appeal. A Miscellaneous Application No.933 of 2021 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the said delay which was condoned by this Commission, vide order dated 18.10.2021 and M.A. No.933 of 2021 is disposed of accordingly.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was unexplained delay in filing of the complaint but learned District Commission has condoned the delay whereas, no proper explanation was submitted in the application for condonation of delay. The amount was deposited by the complainant on 04.01.2017 on account of security for release of tubewell connection and necessary form was also filled up on 04.01.2017. The limitation for filing complaint was 2 years but it was filed after a period of 2 years and complaint was time barred but still the delay was condoned.
F.A. No.294 of 2021 5
9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned District Commission in Para No.8 has held that the Demand Notice dated 04.01.2017 was duly dispatched as Exhibit- OP/2 but still a direction was issued to the appellants to issue a fresh demand notice to the complainant. It is also the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned District Commission has categorically held that the respondent/complainant had not objected to the documents as Ex.OP-1/1 and OP-2 which were placed on the file by the appellants/OPs but still the respondent/complainant did not deposit the requisite fee and complete the formalities. It was the fault of the complainant in not depositing the fee and accordingly the liability could not have been shifted upon the appellants to issue a fresh demand notice to the respondent/complainant, in view of the provision Clause 10 of the demand notice.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that the order passed by the District Commission is well reasoned and has been passed by considering the averments made in the complaint as well as the stand taken in the reply to the complaint. It has been specifically mentioned in the order that the respondent/complainant had deposited the security amount on 04.01.2017 vide receipt Ex.C-1 and the demand notice No.38 dated 04.01.2017, was prepared and dispatched on the same day. Ex.OP-2 is the copy of the service registry maintained by OP-Department. The name of complainant was reflected against Sr. No.58478 (under CM quota). The complainant did F.A. No.294 of 2021 6 not object to the said documents i.e. Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 which were placed on the file by OPs.
11. By considering all these facts the complaint was disposed of with the direction to appellants/OPs to issue a fresh demand notice to the respondent/complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and respondent/complainant was also directed to deposit the fee by completing the requisite formalities as demanded for release of tubewell connection within a period of 30 days.
12. The factum of applying for tubewell connection on 1st April, 2016 has not been disputed. Even it has not been disputed that the respondent/complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.33,000/- on 04.01.2017 as security for the connection, as per directions issued by the appellants/OPs. Further it has also not been disputed that JE- Tarsem Singh had also taken measurement of the site, but still no demand was issued.
13. By considering all these facts as mentioned above and by observing that the respondent/complainant has deposited security amount as well as test report as Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. These documents have not been objected/disputed by the appellants. Meaning thereby, the respondent/complainant has not only deposited the requisite fee but completed all the formalities which were required for release of the tubewell connection.
F.A. No.294 of 2021 7
14. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was disposed of by issuing directions to appellants/OPs to issue a fresh demand notice to the respondent/complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
15. Accordingly, we find no infirmity/illegality in the order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the District Commission and, as such, finding no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants/OPs, the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of work and less staff.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER April 28, 2022.
SK