PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs JASWINDER SINGH

IT is an appeal against the order dated 19.11.2001 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the Government of Punjab had launched a scheme to provide electricity connections to the farmers for Toka Machine/Fodder Cutting Machine for cutting of green fodder for their animals. The respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had applied for the S.P. Toka connection under the above said scheme and had deposited Rs. 1,500/- on 26.5.2000. After the receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,500/-, the appellant-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties) were duty bound to release the abovesaid Toka connection to the complainant. All the expenses for release of the abovesaid connection were to be borne by the opposite parties as per scheme of the Government. Opposite party No. 2, vide its letter dated 9.10.2000 dismissed the claim of the complainant and did not release the Toka connection without any reason illegally and against law and facts without affording any opportunity of being heard to the complainant. A direction was sought in the complaint for directing the opposite parties to release the Toka connection to the complainant immediately and to pay him a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment suffered by him. On notice, opposite parties filed a joint reply. It was admitted in the reply that the complainant had applied for S.P. Toka connection and had deposited Rs. 1,500/- on 26.5.2000. It was pleaded that the application of the complainant was rejected vide letter dated 9.10.2000 on the report of the J.E., P.S.E.B., Badal as there was no Dhani for the residence of the complainant in his agricultural field and the complainant wanted to instal the said electric connection beyond Abadi in his agricultural fields. After going through the record and after having heard the Counsel for the parties the complaint was allowed by the District Forum. District Forum had ordered the release of S.P. Toka connection to the complainant.

Hence this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite parties and have also heard Shri Jaswinder Singh, respondent-complainant who is present in person and have gone through the record of the case.

WE do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted before us that the opposite parties had rightly rejected the application of the complainant because there was no Dhani at the spot. It is further argued by the Counsel that on 5.9.2000, Shri Baltej Singh, J.E. had checked the site and had made report on the application (Ex. R-2) to the effect that the complainant wanted S.P. Toka connection outside Abadi and there was likelihood of misuse of the connection. On the same day, he had submitted report Ex. R-7 stating that he had checked the site of the complainant and there was no Dhani at the site. The site being outside Abadi there was likelihood of misuse of the connection and he had recommended for denial of connection to the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant had applied for S.P. Toka connection with the opposite parties and had deposited Rs. 1,500/- on 26.5.2000. Thereafter, opposite parties had prepared rough sketch Ex. R-8, on 27.8.2000 and after preparation of the abovesaid rough sketch Ex. R8, the opposite parties had told the complainant to submit an affidavit to the effect that he will not misuse the S.P. Toka connection. In compliance thereof, the complainant had filed the affidavit, which is Ex. R-6 on the record.

IN report Ex. R-2, it is mentioned that the site of the complainant was checked. The complainant wanted to get connection outside Abadi and there was likelihood of misuse of the same. It is pertinent to note here that Ex. R-8 is the rough sketch prepared by the opposite parties on 28.7.2000. On this sketch Ex. R-8, also there is no mention that there was no Dhani at the spot. After preparation of the rough sketch Ex. R-8, the opposite parties had asked the complainant to file the affidavit to the effect that he will not misuse the connection and in compliance thereof the complainant had filed the affidavit Ex. R-6 with the opposite parties. Moreover, it has not been shown to us from any policy or from any other record by the Counsel for the appellant-opposite parties that existence of Dhani was compulsory for release of S.P. Toka connection as alleged by the opposite parties. If it were so, the opposite parties would have rejected the application of the complainant on 28.7.2000 itself when rough sketch Ex. R-8 was prepared by the opposite parties and they would not have asked the complainant to file the affidavit (Ex. R-6), to the effect that he will not misuse the S.P. Toka connection. The Counsel for the opposite parties as stated above has failed to show any rule/instruction of the opposite parties wherein it is provided that S.P. Toka connection could not be given without a Dhani in the fields. The rough sketch Ex. R-8 prepared by the Assistant Engineer of the opposite parties on 28.7.2000 rather proves the positive step taken by the opposite parties to provide Toka connection to the complainant. Later on, without any reason, on the report of another officer, which is not based on any valid reason, law or rule, S.P. Toka connection was denied to the complainant. It has, thus, rightly been held by the District Forum that rejection of the report of another officer, which is not based on any valid reason, law or rule, S.P. Toka connection was denied to the complainant. It has, thus, rightly been held by the District Forum that rejection of the application of the complainant for S.P. Toka connection by the opposite parties was neither proper nor legal and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.