State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs Inderjit Singh on 30 November, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.253 of 2021
Date of Institution : 26.07.2021
Date of Decision : 30.11.2022
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Mudki, District
Ferozepur, through its authorized signatory. PIN Code:- 142060.
.....Appellant/ Opposite Party
Versus
Inderjit Singh son of Darbara Singh, aged 54 years, resident of
Village Bhaloor, Tehsil Baghapurana, District Moga, Pin Code
142038, Mobile No.98552-02160.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against
orders dated 09.03.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate
For the respondent : None
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
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
The appellant-Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Authorized Signatory has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the 'Act') to 2 First Appeal No.253 of 2021 challenge the impugned order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred as the "District Commission") in C.C. No.556 of 2019, whereby the complaint filed by respondent/complainant was allowed. The relevant part of said order is reproduced as under:-
"11. In view of what has been discussed above, the present complaint is allowed with Rs.3000/- as consolidated compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment as well as litigation expenses and the opposite party is directed to release the tube well connection after completing the remaining formalities to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of order."
2. There was a delay of 42 days in filing of the appeal. M.A. No.800 of 2021 was filed which was supported by an affidavit of Sh. Satwinder Singh Sodhi, Additional Superintending Engineer, City Division of the PSPCL. Delay of 42 days in filing of the appeal was condoned vide order dated 10.01.2022 and said M.A. was disposed of.
3. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant Inderjit Singh before the District Commission which are necessary to reach to the conclusion that he 3 First Appeal No.253 of 2021 applied for AP tubewell motor connection of 7.5 HP with OP and also deposited an amount of Rs.1600/- on 31.03.2013 as per demand made by the OP. The complainant also completed all necessary formalities and supplied all the required documents. The complainant approached the OP on a number of occasions but still tubewell motor connection was not released and matter was put off on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, again an amount of Rs.4500/- was deposited against proper receipt and thereafter again an amount of Rs.98,945/- was deposited on 14.11.2018. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.400/- was deposited for enhancement of motor connection from 7.5 HP to 10 HP. An assurance was given to release the connection but still nothing was done by the OP. Stating to be a case of 'deficiency in service' and allegations of 'unfair trade practice' on the part of OP the complaint was filed before the District Commission for direction to install the electric tubewell connection and to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation on account of causing mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. On issuing notice, OP appeared and filed written reply wherein certain preliminary objections were raised stating therein that there was no 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OP and the complainant did not approach the Commission with clean hands. It was also mentioned that the complainant in connivance with one Hardeep Singh official of PSPCL Sub Division Mudki had tried to cheat and forged the demand notice. Other averments made in the complaint were denied. There were certain other allegations of 4 First Appeal No.253 of 2021 forging of documents against the complainant which were stated to be done in connivance with an employee of PSPCL.
6. By considering the contents of the complaint, reply thereof filed by the OP and on hearing the arguments raised by counsel representing both the parties, the complaint was allowed vide order dated 09.03.2021.
7. The appellant/OP has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the said order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the District Commission by raising a number of grounds.
8. M.A. Nos.1143 & 1260 of 2021 (for Additional Evidence) were filed during the pendency of the appeal for placing on record certified copy of Annexure A-3 (demand notice) and its translated copy which was sent by PSPCL to the complainant as the same was directed to place on the record vide order dated 19.10.2021. Said application was allowed vide order dated 16.11.2021 and Annexure A-3 was taken on record. The appellant/OP has also filed on record office order dated 01.10.2020 passed against Sh. Hardeep Singh, official of PSPCL with regard to forging of documents in connivance with the complainant.
9. Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant/OP submits that the District Commission while allowing the complaint filed by the complainant has not taken into consideration the role of the respondent/complainant as he was involved in forging of the document in connivance of one official of appellant/OP. It was 5 First Appeal No.253 of 2021 proved on record that the respondent/complainant was in connivance with one official namely Hardeep Singh who got issued the forged and fabricated demand notice for getting the connection and being in connivance with him he had also got the amount of estimate deposited and also deposited the test report.
10. Learned counsel also submits that it has been proved on record in the inquiry conducted by the Additional Superintending Engineer, Technical Circle Ferozepur that the demand notice was forged by the complainant. The allegations of forging of documents have been established in the inquiry report which is annexed as Annexure A-2. Learned counsel also submits that while allowing the complaint by the District Commission this aspect has not been taken into consideration as not only the demand notice was forged but certain other documents were also forged. The District Commission has overlooked the enquiry report as nothing has been said in the impugned order about the outcome of the inquiry. The complainant applied for tubewell connection on 31.01.2013 and case of the complainant was sent to City Division Ferozepur by the Sub Division for preparing estimate on 28.12.2016 and City Division on 04.01.2017 vide memo No.96 had passed the estimate and it was sent to Sub Division Mudki. Thereafter, on 04.01.2017 the Assembly Election of the State was declared and due to imposition of code of conduct the demand notice could not be issued. Mr. Vaibhav Narang further submits that earlier the demand notices were issued prior to imposition of Code of Conduct of Election and ban was put for 6 First Appeal No.253 of 2021 issuance on demand notice to other applicants. After said instructions, the complainant in connivance with Hardeep Singh ARA photocopied some old demand notice and inserting the name of complainant got issued demand notice to him in the back date. Demand notice dated 28.12.2016 was having signature of Engineer Gaurav Kakkar, Assistant Engineer, who left the charge on 18.05.2016 when the said officer was not in the office. Meaning thereby the demand notice was forged by the official in connivance with the complainant. Mr. Narang has also submitted that allegations of fraud are apparent even from bare perusal of demand notice as the postal receipt dated 06.02.2016 was affixed thereon by the post office of the old notice. The complainant and official Hardeep Sigh forgot to remove that portion and it remained on the demand notice which was clearly apparent that the demand notice was copied from some other old demand notice. Learned counsel further submits that it was proved on record in the enquiry that complainant also got the amount deposited with the connivance of Hardeep Singh by using the forged and fabricated demand notice in a illegal manner and that too without the approval of the SDO concerned.
11. Learned counsel for respondent/complainant submits that the complainant had already deposited the amount on various occasions and no objection was ever raised by any officer/official. The complainant applied for tubewell connection on 31.01.2013 and inspite of long period nothing was done whereas tubewell connection was released to other similarly situated persons. Due to delay on the 7 First Appeal No.253 of 2021 part of the OP, the case was kept pending and only on the ground that election code was ordered, the connection was not released. All these factors have been taken into consideration by the District Commission. The order has been passed by considering the reply filed before the District Commission by the appellant/OP. Learned counsel also submits that no role of respondent/complainant has been proved on record that how demand notice was issued in connivance with the complainant. The amount was deposited in different branches and the demand notice was issued by some other person. There cannot be any possibility of forging of the document at the instance of the complainant.
12. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties. I have also carefully perused the contents of complaint, reply thereof filed before the District Commission and the order passed by the District Commission.
13. The factum of filing of complaint before the District Commission and reply thereof and also the order passed by the District Commission in favour of the complainant and thereafter filing of appeal before this Commission by the OP are not in dispute.
14. By considering the submissions raised by both the sides it is to be seen as to whether there was any connivance of the respondent/complainant in issuing the demand notice for tubewell connection or not?
8First Appeal No.253 of 2021
15. Allegations of connivance and forging of demand notice as submitted by learned counsel by the appellant in the grounds of appeal as well as in the oral arguments were not considered by the District Commission while allowing the complaint. The connivance between the complainant and the official of the OP and also as to what was the role of the complainant in forging the documents are matter of evidence. Undisputedly the enquiry was conducted against the official namely Hardeep Singh ARA but it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/OP that only a penalty of censure was issued to the erring official. It has not been proved on record neither from the reply of the complaint nor by the arguments raised before the District Commission as well as before this Commission in the appeal as to what was the serial number of the request of the complainant in the list of the applicants who applied for tubewell connection and upto which number the tubewell connections were released.
16. All these aspects were required to be considered by the District Commission but the same have not been taken into consideration by the District Commission while passing the impugned order. Whatever has been submitted by the learned counsel representing the appellant/OP, the same is required to be ascertained and that can be possible by way of evidence. For that purpose the rebuttal evidence from the side of respondent/complainant is also necessary.
9First Appeal No.253 of 2021
17. Accordingly, I remand the case to the District Commission for deciding it afresh after considering the evidence or documents produced by both the parties before the District Commission. The parties are also directed to appear before the District Commission on 06.01.2023. The District Commission is also directed to allow both the parties to produce evidence, if any, and thereafter to decide the complaint afresh after granting adequate opportunity to both the parties. The impugned order passed by the District Commission is accordingly set aside. The District Commission is also directed to make efforts to dispose of the complaint preferably within a period of three months.
18. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.1500/- at the time of filing of the appeal with this Commission. Said amount, alongwith interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The appellant/OP may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard by considering the evidence available on record and in accordance with law.
19. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
10First Appeal No.253 of 2021
20. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT November 30, 2022 (MM)