P.S.E.B. vs Jagdev Singh

IT is an appeal against the order dated 7.2.2001 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Shri Govinder Singh, the father of the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had applied for release of electric connection to the appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) for A.P. purpose, vide A and A Form dated 6.8.1985 and had deposited Rs. 260/- vide Receipt No. 19. Shri Gonvinder Singh - the father of the complainant had died on 24.3.1991. The complainant had informed the opposite party and had filed the affidavit regarding the death of Shri Govinder Singh who was killed by the extremists. The complainant had submitted his affidavit on 11.4.1997 to the opposite party with regard to the death of his father. Opposite party had changed the electric connection in the name of the complainant and got filled the A and A Form from the complainant on 26.3.1997. Opposite party issued demand notice dated 26.3.1997 in favour of the complainant. The complainant had submitted the test report in compliance to the demand notice issued by the opposite party along with the demand draft of Rs. 4,000/- in favour of the opposite party on 11.4.1997. It was then stated on the complaint that the complainant had complied with all the requirements/formalities for release of electric connection for the tubewell. The opposite party under the relevant rules was under legal obligation to release the electric connection to the complainant within a period of 6 months from the date of issue of the demand notice and the submission of the test report. The opposite party failed to release the electric connection to the complainant within the stipulated period and had committed deficiency in service. It was then stated in the complaint that the complainant had approached the opposite party with the request to release electric connection to the complainant but the opposite party remained diily-dallying the matter on one pretext or the other. Representations made by the complainant to the opposite party were not properly attended to. Ultimately, a prayer was made by the complainant before the District Forum that the opposite party be directed to pay the damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- due to loss caused to the complainant, Rs. 30,000/- on account of compensation due to negligence and deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000/- as costs of the complaint. Opposite party in the reply took the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable since there was no deficiency in service on their part. The father of the complainant had applied in general category and his seniority number in the seniority list was 154. Only applicants of general category upto serial No. 36 had been provided connection. It was then stated in the reply that the complainant was informed that as and when his turn will come he would be given the connection. It was admitted in the reply that the father of the complainant had applied for the electric connection and demand notice was issued. It was also admitted in the reply that the complainant had deposited Rs. 4,000/-. Other formalities complied with the complainant after issuance of demand notice were not denied by the opposite party.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint with a direction to the opposite party to release the connection to the complainant as early as possible and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. Hence this appeal.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite party and Shri Hardial Singh, representative of the respondent-complainant and have gone through the record of the case minutely. Admitted facts are that the father of the complainant had applied for an electric connection for running the tubewell and had deposited the necessary registration fee. Demand notice was issued by the opposite party and in compliance of the demand notice, the complainant had submitted the test report and had deposited an amount of Rs. 4,000/- on 11.4.1997. It is not disputed that the complainant had completed all the conditions/formalities on his part after the issuance of demand notice by the opposite party to him. Still tubewell connection was not released to the complainant. Contention of the opposite party that the father of the complainant had applied for the connection in general category and number of the complainants in the seniority list was 154 and only the applicants upto seniority list No. 36 of the General Category had been provided electric connection, is without any substance.

ADMITTEDLY, the opposite party had issued Demand Notice No. 1071 dated 26.3.1997 in favour of the complainant and the complainant had submitted the test report in compliance with the demand notice issued by the opposite party to him along with demand draft amounting to Rs. 4,000/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Jagraon, in favour of the opposite party on 11.4.1997. The opposite party had issued necessary receipt also on 11.4.1997. It was obligatory on the part of the opposite party-Board to release the connection of the tubewell to the complainant within two months or at the most within six months from the issuance of demand notice to the complainant irrespective of his seniority on any other list. The seniority list, if any maintained by the opposite party, at the most could be considered before the issuance of the demand notice. After the issuance of demand notice any seniority list maintained by the opposite party was not of any relevance. Admittedly, demand notice was issued to the complainant in the case in hand. The moment the demand notice is issued the salutary effect of Instruction No. 26 of the Sales Manual of the Board as amended on 3.1.1997 starts operating. In this regard reference may be made to orders of this Commission in PSEB v. Dalbir Singh, Appeal No. 1298 of 1998 dated 25.2.2000, and PSEB v. Zora Singh, Appeal No. 540 of 2002 dated 20.5.2002. In view of our discussion made above, this appeal is dismised with costs which are quantified at Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal dismissed.