CHAIRMAN, PSEB vs AMRIK SINGH

IT is an appeal against the order dated 27.1.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

AS per averments in the complaint, the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) is a small agriculturist. At the time of Paddy crop, the Government had floated a policy for the installation of temoporary tubewell connection to the poor farmers. The complainant had applied for the tubewell connection and had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000/- on 12.7.2001. The temporary connection was duly installed by the appellant-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties). Thereafter opposite party had formulated a scheme that the connection already installed could be treated as permanent subject to payment of expenses to be deposited with the opposite parties. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 600/- on 26.11.2001 for permanent connection. The connection was not released. The intention of the opposite parties was not bona fide. The opposite parties were trying to get the illegal gratification from the complainant. The complainant could not meet with the demand and the connection had not been released. It is then alleged in the complaint that the complainant had suffered loss as well as mental agony. A prayer was made before the District Forum that the opposite party be directed to release the tubewell connection already installed in the name of the complainant and the opposite party be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. Opposite parties had filed a joint reply. It has been admitted that the complainant had applied for temporary connection for Paddy crop season and had deposited Rs. 4,000/- for that purpose. It is also admitted that a Commercial Circular No. 70/01 was issued providing for connection for regularization of temporary connection. That circular provided that the length of LT line including service cable shall not be more than 110+20% i.e. 132 metres for the individual connection and the overall total length of LT line shall not be more than 500 metres as per the existing instructions. The complainant had deposited Rs. 600/- for regularization of temporary connection into the permanent connection. That amount was towards processing fee for regularization of the connection. It is then stated in the reply that the Junior Engineer concerned visited the spot and after verifying the spot he found that the overall total length of LT line in the case of the complainant was about 600 metres i.e. beyond the prescribed limit of 500 metres. It is then stated that the complainant was not entitled to regularization of temporary connection as such. According to the opposite parties the complainant was not entitled to any relief.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties and after having gone through the record, the District Forum allowed the complaint and direct the opposite party to regularize the temporary connection of the complainant into permanent one. Hence this appeal.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and have gone through the detailed order passed by the District Forum. It is admitted that the complainant was granted a temporary tubewell connection and the opposite parties had made a scheme for regularization of temporary connection on certain terms and conditions incorporated in Circular No. 70/2001, copy of which is placed as Ex. C-3 on the file of the District Forum. It is also admitted that the complainant had deposited the requisite process fee for the purpose of regularization of connection. The only plea of the opposite parties is that as per the provisions of Circular No. 70/2001, the overall total length of LT line should not be more than 500 metres in case of regularization of the tubewell connection, but in the case in hand, the overall total length of LT line was about 600 metres and, thus, the connection could not be regularized. In the written reply filed by the opposite parties, it is stated that the Junior Engineer had visited the spot and after verifying the spot found the overall total length of LT line about 600 metres. The affidavit of Junior Engineer has not been filed. District Forum has rightly held that in case the J.E. had visited the spot and had verified the total length of LT line, the J.E. and the opposite parties should be specific about the exact length of LT line for the purpose of regularization of connection. Use of the phraseology "about 600 metres" is anything but fair has rightly been held by the District Forum. It shows that exact length of the LT line was not measured in a bona fide manner. District Forum has, thus, rightly not relied upon the site plan Ex. R-4. The rejection of the prayer of the complainant was conveyed vide memo Ex. R-2. In that memo also the specific overall length of LT line was not mentioned. It is only stated that the application of the complainant for regularization was rejected because of excess length of LT line. In these circumstances, we find the order of the District Forum as fair and correct. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as meritless. Appeal dismissed.