PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs HARCHARAN SINGH

IT is an appeal against order dated 12.10.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called ''District Forum, Patiala''). District Forum, Patiala vide its order dated 12.10.2000 has allowed the complaint and directed the appellants/opposite parties before the District Forum (hereinafter called the ''opposite parties'') to consider the case of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum (hereinafter called the ''complainant'') for grant of Tubewell Connection in preferential category of Freedom Fighter in Village Naraingarh Chhana treating the seniority from the date of application dated 26.12.1991 and in the light of the Circular dated 14.10.1996 and other relevant rules. The appeal has been preferred against this order by the opposite parties mainly on the ground that the application filed by the complainant was not within limitation and that the complainant was not entitled to take benefit of the application and to get the connection on the basis of application of Sham Kaur, his mother. The main points for consideration before the District Forum were as to whether the complaint was within time and as to whether the complainant had locus standi to file the complaint and as to whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service by not releasing the tubewell connection from the category of freedom fighters.

THE abovesaid finding of the District Forum as has been reproduced above is upon cogent reasons. Before giving a verdict the District Forum had heard the parties concerned and had gone through the relevant record of the case. Sham Kaur, mother of the complainant, had submitted an application vide A-A Form, copy of which is Ex. C-9. The application was submitted on 26.12.1991 and the Assistant Executive Engineer recorded a note as under : "At present A.P. cannot be allowed in urban area and consumer may be informed accordingly."

Sham Kaur was never denied the tubewell connection. The complainant, in fact, had submitted the application dated 20.10.1999 (Ex. C-3) for transfer of the application to Chaurwala office of the opposite parties and the name of the complainant figured in seniority vide Ex. R-3. Gurjant Singh has admitted in the affidavit Ex. R-l filed before the District Forum that his office had entered the application of Sham Kaur in its register of general category and the application will be duly considered on turn. In these circumstances, the District Forum had rightly held that the complainant had a continuing cause of action, and thus, it could not be held that the complaint was barred by time. We confirm this finding of the District Forum.

TUBEWELL connection was originally applied for by Sham Kaur, mother of the complainant. She had died on 8.5.1998 as per the death certificate (Ex. C-5) without realising the fruits of the application. Her legal heirs Manmohan Singh etc. have filed an affidavit, copy of which is Ex. C-6 stating that they had no objection if the application for tubewell connection submitted by Sham Kaur was transferred in the name of the complainant Harcharan Singh in the relevant records of the opposite parties. The complainant, thus, had locus standi to file the complaint in his capacity as the representative in interest of Sham Kaur. The point as to whether the complainant was entitled to be considered for the grant of tubewell connection in the preferential category of the freedom fighter has also been rightly decided in favour of the complainant by the District Forum. It has come out from the order of the District Forum that after some dilly dallying, the opposite parties had produced on record the copies of relevant documents which had been tendered by the complainant in evidence. Ex. C-9 is the copy of the application form submitted by Sham Kaur, mother of the complainant. At the bottom of the application, she had signed as Sham Kaur and had specifically mentioned her status as freedom fighter. Along with the application, she had submitted the proof consisting of a letter from the Govt, of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Ex. C-7) and a letter from the Office of Treasurer Charitable Endowments, Punjab (Ex. C-8). These documents were attached by Sham Kaur with her application for tubewell connection since no specific form was prescribed for giving applications as freedom fighters. The mention of status of Sham Kaur as freedom fighter in the application and the documents enclosed with the application are sufficient to enable the opposite parties to enter the name of Sham Kaur in the category of freedom fighters for the grant of tubewell connection. It has been specifically mentioned in the order of the District Forum that no application was made before the District Forum (no such plea has been taken even before us) that there was any specific proforma for submitting an application by Freedom Fighters. Sham Kaur was, thus, entitled to tubewell connection as a freedom fighter. The Chief Engineer Commercial, Sales, Directorate of the opposite parties, issued a Commercial Circular No. 42/96 dated 14.10.1996 which states, inter alia, as under : "Other Priority Categories Covered under the Terms and Conditions of SFS : . The cut-off date for the priority categories mentioned below has been extended upto 31.3.1995. The pending applications covered under these priority categories can be processed for issue of demand notices and release of connections as per above cut-off date.

SHAM Kaur was, thus, entitled for issuance of a demand notice and for issuance of a connection of tubewell as freedom fighter in the terms of the abovesaid policy. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had filed an application before the Office of North Sub Division for transfer of his A-A Form to the office of Chaurwala vide his application dated 20.10.1999 which was received in the Office of North Sub Division on the same day and was entered at No. 1655. The said application was forwarded to the Office of Chief Engineer, Distribution for approval. The Chief Engineer vide office letter No. 887 dated 8.2.2000 had forwarded the case to the Chief Engineer/ Commercial for necessary approval and the approval was given vide memo No. 12399 dated 23.2.2000. Necessary information was given to the Office of Senior Executive Engineer, Distribution. The Office of the Senior Executive Engineer Operation, Sirhind had forwarded the case to the Office of Sub Division, Chaurwala vide memo No. 12187 dated 1.3.2000. It is proved on the record that the complainant had filed the application dated 20.10.1999, copy of which is Ex. C-3. It was duly processed and the name of the complainant had been entered in the seniority list Ex. R-3 for grant of tubewell connection in general category. It is not understood how after having entertained the application of SHAM Kaur as freedom fighter, the opposite parties had entered the name of the complainant in general category. The complainant, thus, as a successor in the interest of SHAM Kaur, his mother, is entitled for the grant of tubewell connection in the category of freedom fighter on the basis of the application dated 26.12.1991. Refusal of the opposite parties to grant the tubewell connection to the complainant was, thus, deficiency in service on their part. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum, Patiala. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed in limine.