PSEB vs Jagroop Singh

IT is an appeal against the order dated 5.8.2002 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the "District Forum").

BRIEFLY stated, the facts as stated in the complaint filed before the District Forum are that the respondent-complainant Jagroop Singh (hereinafter called the "complainant") had applied for tube-well connection in the year 1990 and had deposited Rs. 120/- for this purpose. A number of his co-villagers had also applied for tube-well connections. Demand notices were issued to his co-villagers as per circular No. 70/74 dated 28.1.2000. Another circular No. 7/2001 was issued directing all the Chief Engineers to release/issue the demand notices to the applicants, who had applied upto 31.3.1990. It was further alleged by the complainant that the appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter called the "opposite parties") had issued demand notices to a number of persons who had applied after the date of application by the complainant. It was then stated in the complaint that the opposite parties had already installed 25 KW transformer in the land of Harjant Singh and connection could be issued to the complainant from that transformer. When the opposite parties even did not issue demand notice and superseded the name of the complainant, he then filed complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the opposite parties to issue a demand notice and release the motor tube-well connection. He had also alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties in their reply had admitted that the complainant had applied for tube-well connection in the year 1990 and demand notices were issued to those applicants who had applied in the general category covering the period 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1989 and the demand notices were issued on seniority basis. It was stated that as many as 195 applicants had complied with the demand notices and the opposite parties, after releasing the connection to those persons, would issue fresh demand notices. Deficiency in service on their part was denied.

After having gone through the evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant, the District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the following orders: "The learned Counsel for the complainant highlighted only one grievance that the opposite parties have issued demand notice to the applicants who applied much after the date of the application of the complainant which is not only discrimination but also deficiency of service. The complainant admittedly has deposited the required fee and stands registered as a prospective applicant for tube-well connection. As per circular No. 7/2001 the competent officers have been directed to release demand notice to the applicants who applied upto 31.3.1990. Admittedly the complainant made application on 5.2.1990 i.e. much before on 31.3.1990. Copies of the demand notices Exs. C2 to C4 clearly show that the name of the complainant has been superseded in the matter of issuing the demand notice without assigning any reason. Therefore, holding that it amounts to deficiency of service the opposite parties are directed to issue a demand notice to the complainant so that his name is entered in the waiting list for the release of the tube-well connection on his turn. The order should be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs. 200/- as costs of the complaint. The copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned."

Hence this appeal.

WE have gone through the order of the District Forum very minutely and have also heard the Counsels for the parties. WE do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Admittedly, the complainant had deposited the required fee and was registered as a prospective applicant for tube-well connection. As per circular No. 7/2001, the competent officers had been directed to release demand notices to the applicants who had applied upto 31.3.1990. Admittedly, the complainant had submitted his application on 5.2.1990, i.e. much before 31.3.1990. It has been specifically observed by the District Forum that copies of the demand notices (Exhibits C2 to C4) clearly showed that the name of the complainant had been superseded in the matter of issuing a demand notice to him without assigning any reason and this position remains un-rebutted. In these circumstances, it has been rightly held by the District Forum that the action of the opposite parties in not issuing a demand notice to the complainant amounted to deficiency in service. This appeal is, thus, dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 1000/-. Appeal dismissed.