State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pseb vs Balbir Singh on 19 April, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.38 of 2007
Date of institution: 08.01.2007
Date of decision : 19.04.2012
PSEB through its SDO, Naushera Majha Singh Sub Division, Naushera
Majha Singh, District Gurdaspur.
.....Appellants
Versus
Balbir Singh s/o Bachan Singh r/o Vill. Bhojraj, Tehsil & Distt. Gurdaspur.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 7.11.2006
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.
Before:-
Mr.Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr.Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.L.S.Padda, Advocate for
Sh.R.K.Arya, Advocate
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is OP-appellants' appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 7.11.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short the District Forum) vide which the complaint of the complainant-respondent was allowed and the OP-appellants were directed to release the tubewell connection within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Parties were left to bear their own costs.
First Appeal No.38 of 2007 2
2. The brief facts of the case are that Balbir Singh complainant- respondent had applied for a tubewell connection under the Boarder Area Scheme on 26.5.1992. He continuously remained approaching the OP- appellants for the release of the connection but the OP-appellants told him that his application and other documents had been misplaced and were not traceable. On their request, the complainant-respondent moved a fresh application and deposited Rs.1000/- with the OP-appellants on 29.5.2001. The OP-appellants released the tubewell electric connection to all those persons who had applied after 26.5.1992 but not to the complainant- respondent, due to which, he claimed that he was suffering a huge financial loss. The complainant-respondent, therefore, filed the present complaint to direct the OP-appellants to release the electric tubewell connection and also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for financial loss, physical pain and mental agony and also litigation expenses.
3. The OP-appellants admitted that the complainant-respondent had applied for tubewell electric connection under general category by depositing a sum of Rs.1000/- but, thereafter, he changed the same to Boarder Area Scheme. It was denied if the application and connected papers have been misplaced in their office. He, however, subsequently, applied for changing his connection from one Sub Division to another Sub Division. It was alleged that there is a ban on release of electric connection which is still continuing and, therefore, the electric connection could not be issued.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP-appellants to release the connection as First Appeal No.38 of 2007 3 mentioned above. The OP-appellants have challenged the same through this appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The only ground taken by the OP-appellants for not releasing the connection is that there is a ban on the release of new connections for tubewell. The OP-appellants, however, did not produce any documents on the record from which the learned District Forum could come to the conclusion that there was a ban. In the absence of the evidence to this effect, it could not be presumed that the electric connection to the complainant- respondent has not been released due to ban imposed by the Head Office of the OP-appellants. The complainant-respondent has, however, produced the affidavit Ex.C8 of Saudagar Singh and Ex.C9 of Karamjit Singh who had applied for electric connection after 26.5.1992 and the same have since been released to them. The OP-appellants produced no evidence to contradict this stand. It is contended that the seniority of the complainant-respondent got changed firstly due to his change of priority from general connection to boarder area scheme and thereafter, from one sub division to another sub division of the OP-appellants. We do not find any merit in this argument. The order passed by the learned District Forum to allow the electric connection to the complainant-respondent is, therefore, perfectly legal and valid in view of the evidence produced before them.
8. While filing the present appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed certain documents on file to suggest that yearly ban is continuing against the grant of electric connection. His contention is that these documents should be taken into consideration for deciding this appeal. We do not find any merit in this contention. The documents attached with First Appeal No.38 of 2007 4 the memorandum of appeal cannot be taken into consideration for deciding the case firstly because no such evidence was produced before the learned District Forum nor any application for additional evidence has been moved in this appeal. No opportunity has been afforded to the complainant- respondent to rebut the documents attached with the appeal. Further more, none of these documents is per se admissible and these were required to be proved by the OP-appellants in accordance with law. These documents have not been proved by the OP-appellants because no affidavit of any official proving these documents as genuine has been placed on file. We are, therefore, of the opinion that these documents vide which the OP-appellants allege that there is a ban on the release of electric connection cannot be taken into consideration even if the same have been produced along with the memorandum of appeal.
9. Even if for arguments' sake, these documents are considered to be admissible in evidence, the same do not prove the case of the OP- appellants. The latest document is dated 4.8.2006 showing that there was ban on release of fresh tubewell electric connection except for applications registered upto 31.3.1990 under general category besides priority cases allowed under the Chairman discretion quota, ex-serviceman priority and kandi area priority. There is no document to suggest if there was ban after 2006-07.
10. The learned counsel has not produced any document to suggest if the ban is continuing till today. There is, therefore, no justification to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint. There is no merit First Appeal No.38 of 2007 5 in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The complainant- respondent would be entitled to Rs.5000/- towards costs of litigation.
12. Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER April 19, 2012.
Paritosh