State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Punjab ... vs Inder Singh Son Of Sh. Mukand Singh on 1 December, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
S.C.O. NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.806 of 2009
In/and
First Appeal No.607 of 2009
Date of Institution: 29.04.2009
Date of Decision : 01.12.2009
1. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board (Sub-Urban)
Mansa etc.
2. The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala.
.........Appellants
Versus
Inder Singh son of Sh. Mukand Singh resident of village Bhaini-Bagha, Tehsil and
Distt. Mansa.
...........Respondent
First Appeal against order dated 16.3.2009 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Mansa.
BEFORE
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Presiding Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member PRESENT For the appellants: Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate for Sh. Darindra Shukla, Advocate For the respondent: Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Representative PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER Misc. Application No. 806 of 2009 for delay This appeal was filed after delay of 5 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. Reasons have been given in the application, which justify the delay. The application is supported by an affidavit. Representative of the respondent opposes the request of the appellants. Since good reasons have been given in the application, which justify the delay therefore, the application for condonation of delay is accepted subject to all just exceptions and in the interest of justice the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. Misc. Application stands disposed of.
First Appeal No.607 of 2009 2Main Case This is an appeal filed by P.S.E.B.(in short the appellant) against the order 16.03.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the appellant was accepted by the District Forum.
2. That respondent/complainant has applied for the issuance of electric connection for agriculture with the appellants and deposited the amount of security as demanded by the appellants and after issuance of demand notice by the appellants, he deposited Rs.15,840/- on 5.5.2005. The appellants had failed to release electric connection to the respondent. As such, the appellants were deficient in their services. Hence this complaint for directions to the appellants to issue electric connection and also demanded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment.
3. On being put to notice, appellants filed their written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the respondent is not the consumer within the purview of its definition given in the Act, as such, complaint was not maintainable; that respondent has no cause of action and locus standi to file the complaint; that the complaint was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that his complaint being false and vexatious was liable to be dismissed with costs; he had suppressed the real facts, as such, he was not entitled to the relief prayed for. On merit, it was admitted that the respondent has applied for issuance of electric connection and the same would be released to him, as per seniority on the basis of amount deposited by him on 5.5.2005. It was submitted that the appellants, have proposed to issue the electric connection in the name of the respondent by 31.3.2009 as per the seniority list prepared by the Board. It was contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, because electric connection has not been issued by them in the name of any other person violating the seniority list. Rest of the averments First Appeal No.607 of 2009 3 made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, allowed the complaint with costs of Rs. 2,000/- and the appellants were directed to release the electric connection positively by 30.4.2009.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the representative of the respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per the order of the learned District Forum, the tubewell connection has already been released to the respondent vide service connection order dated 10.10.2009 vide AP No.15984 and the same has been executed on 15.10.2009. The learned counsel for the appellants also produced the relevant documents regarding the release of the tubewell connection to the respondent i.e. the service connection order, sundry job order, new estimate, installation order and the photographs of the same.
8. The representative of the respondent admitted that the tubewell connection has already been released to the respondent.
9. As the appellants have already complied with the order of the District Forum dated 16.3.2009 without any delay, the appeal of the appellants is partly accepted. The order of compensation of Rs.2000/- is set aside.
10. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 1000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 29.4.2009. This amount of Rs.1000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum. First Appeal No.607 of 2009 4
11. Arguments in this case were heard on 20.11.2009 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.
(Lt.Col.Darshan Singh[Retd.])
Presiding Member
December 01 , 2009 (Piare Lal Garg)
As/- vk/- Member