State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Balwant Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. on 4 February, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1113 of 2015
Date of institution : 08.10.2015
Date of decision : 04.02.2016
Balwant Singh son of Shivdev Singh, resident of Village Noorpur,
Post Office Sri Hargobindpur, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.
.......Appellant-Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chief
Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala, District Patiala, Punjab.
2. XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Division
Qadian, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.
3. S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division
Sri Hargobindpur, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.
4. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its S.E.
Division Gurdaspur.
........Respondents-Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
20.08.2015 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Shri Upjeet Singh Brar, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Shri R.K. Arya, Advocate.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal by Balwant Singh, appellant/complainant, is directed against the order dated 20.08.2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for directing the respondents/opposite parties to release the tubewell connection in his name and to pay compensation for the mental and physical harassment suffered by him at their hands on account of the delay in First Appeal No.1113 of 2015 2 releasing the same, was disposed of with the direction to him to arrange and submit the co-owners consent or an alternative installation site under his possession and the opposite parties are directed to release the connection in his favour within 30 days of the receipt of those documents.
2. The complainant alleged, in his complaint, that he is the owner of agricultural land situated in Village Noorpur and is in possession thereof. He applied for electric connection in that land for agricultural purposes on 9.12.1997, vide Application No.1247 AP and completed all the formalities. Demand Notice bearing No.285 dated 11.3.2013 raising a demand of Rs.77,489/- + Rs.500/- was issued and he deposited that amount and, as such, complied with that Demand Notice issued by the opposite parties. In-spite of that the tubewell connection was not released in his favour, though he repeatedly made requests to the opposite parties for the release thereof. This act of the opposite parties is illegal, null and void and against the law and instructions to be followed for the release of the electric connection. He has no irrigation facility in the land in dispute and as a result of the said act of the opposite parties he is not in a position to raise any crop in this land.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply before the District Forum. In the written reply they admitted that the complainant had applied for the tubewell connection for his land situated in Village Noorpur and that in pursuance of the Demand Notice issued to him, he deposited Rs.77,489/- + Rs.500/- and that the tubewell connection was not First Appeal No.1113 of 2015 3 released in his favour. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they averred that the complainant had applied for getting tubewell connection in the year 1997 in General Category and on 23.11.2011 he made an application for converting that connection into ARTC Scheme and the same was allowed as per the Rules. The complainant failed to complete all the requisite formalities for the installation of the tubewell connection in his land. The land was inspected by Mangal Singh, SDO, on 10.6.2013, who made his report that there was no tubewell bore for installation of the tubewell connection and that no room had been constructed for that purpose. He also found that there was no fitting of switch, starter etc. That SDO submitted his report accordingly and in view of that the Test Report for the release of the electric connection failed. For rectifying the defects, Notice, vide Memo No.861 dated 13.6.2013, was issued to the complainant through post but he paid no heed to the same. The second Notice, vide Memo No.891 dated 28.6.2013, was issued in the form of the reminder but he failed to rectify the defects, as mentioned in the Test Report. The Naib Tehsildar Sri Hargobindpur was issued Memo No.960 dated 19.7.2013 to make his report regarding the ownership of the land where the tubewell connection was to be installed. The Naib Tehsildar reported that the tubewell bore was running in Khasra No.19R/9(8-0) and as per Khasra Girdawari that land was in the name of one Sarabjit Singh. Thus, the land for which the tubewell connection was applied for by the complainant was owned and possessed by Sarabjit Singh and on that ground the connection was not released in his favour. However, First Appeal No.1113 of 2015 4 the same would be released on rectifying of these defects. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
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 disposed of the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and have carefully gone through the records of the District Forum, which were called at the time of admission stage of the appeal.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the District Forum committed an illegality by issuing conditional direction to the opposite parties for releasing the tubewell connection only after the submission of the consent of the co-owners or on the disclosing of the alternative installation site under his possession. Once all the formalities were complied with, the opposite parties were required to release the tubewell connection in the land for which the same was applied for and the District Forum was not justified by issuing conditional direction. That itself is a ground for admitting the appeal to be heard on merits.
7. The jamabandi of the land was proved on the record by the complainant himself as Ex.C-20. As per column no.4 of that jamabandi, he is one of the co-owners having one-third share in the joint land. No doubt, he is shown to be in possession of that land as a co-owner. As per the Electricity Supply Regulations, he was required to submit the consent of the other co-owners to the opposite parties before the release of the tubewell connection in his favour. First Appeal No.1113 of 2015 5 As per Regulation 13.6.11, the priority for release of one tubewell connection to each legal heirs is admissible in case of division of landed property; as a result of family partition under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1888 or as a result of inheritance. Thus, the complainant was required to allege and prove that the joint land had already been partitioned and the land for which he applied for the tubewell connection had fallen to his share in that partition. He miserably failed to prove that fact. As per the jamabandi, the land is still jointly owned and as per the Regulations, it was necessary for him to submit the consent of the other co-owners or to disclose alternative land owned and possessed by him. No illegality was committed by the District Forum while issuing conditional direction in favour of the complainant. There is no ground for admitting the appeal to be heard on merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
8. The arguments in this case were heard on 29.1.2016 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER (UPJEET SINGH BRAR) MEMBER February 04, 2016 Bansal