PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. KASHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both Appeal Nos.627 and 628 of 2002 are being disposed of by a common order as according to the learned Counsel for the appellants common questions of facts and law are involved in both these appeals. The facts are being taken from Appeal No.627 of 2002.

(2.) This is an appeal against the order dated 19.3.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (hereinafter called the District Forum ). We have heard the Counsel for the appellants and have gone through the order of the District Forum carefully.

(3.) Undisputedly, the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had applied for getting a tubewell connection to irrigate his fields to the appellants-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties) and had deposited an amount of Rs.360/- and in response of that the complainant was issued a demand notice by the opposite parties in the month of 5/98. In compliance of the demand notice the complainant had deposited Rs.5,000/- vide receipt dated 20.5.1998 and test report etc. Relevant portion of the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint reads as under : "the learned Counsel for the complainant contended vehemently that the complainant applied for getting a tubewell connection to irrigate his fields and deposited the necessary security etc. and further submitted the test report for releasing the tubewell connection. The learned Counsel further contended that his client purchased the motor, constructed the Kotha/room and also installed the wiring/fittings for the purpose. But the opposite parties failed to provid the tubewell connection to the complainant. The learned Counsel for the complainant further contended vehemently that the opposite parties are duty bound to release the tubewell connection of the complainant within six months after the submission of the test report and deposit of security etc. as demanded and in compliance of the demand notice. Thus, the opposite parties are deficient in rendering its services towards the complainant/consumer. To the contrary, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties pleaded that the demand notice has been issued and compliance of the same has also been made, but the connection could only be released as per the seniority list to the complainant/consumer, as no connection has been released to the junior of the complainant and as such the opposite parties are not deficient in rendering its services in any way. Lastly prayed that the complaint being false be dismissed. It is an admitted fact that the complainant applied for getting a tubewell connection to irrigate his fields, compliance of demand notice has also been admitted. The complainant further constructed Kotha and got fitted the wiring etc. and also purchased a motor and spent a lot of money on it. Ex. C-3 is a sworn affidavit of the complainant admitting the same, Ex. Mark-A is a bill dated 15.4.1998 for purchase of cement etc. for Rs.4,700/- for construction of Kotha, Mark-B is dated 10.6.1998 for engine 10 HP for Rs.13,850/- and Mark-C is dated 11.5.1998 showing that the fittings has been completed as per the rules. The opposite parties could not show anything about the rules of issuance of tubewell connections. Ex. OP-2 is a copy of seniority list produced by the opposite parties. This document Ex. OP-2 has not been attested by any of the person/official of the Board. Thus, we are unable to accept this document without any authenticity. Under these circumstances, the opposite parties have failed to establish any reason for not issuance of the electric motor connection to the complainant. It is a rule of the Electricity Board that connection would be released within three/six months after deposit of test report and the security etc. to the consumer. But in the present case, a period of about three years has been lapsed, but the connection has not been released to the complainant/consumer. It is also well-settled law of the Hon'ble State Commission that after issuance of demand notice and compliance thereof, the opposite parties/board is duty bound to release the electric motor connection. The complaint of the complainant is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he availed of services of opposite parties by depositing the security etc. and further paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- for getting the electric motor connection and thus, the complaint is maintainable and objection of the opposite parties is not maintainable. As a result of above discussion, we hold that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties and they are deficient in rendering its services by not releasing the tubewell connection. As such, the complaint is allowed partly and opposite parties are directed to release the electric motor connection within 45 days of the date of receipt of copy of the order. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.12,000/- as total compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. The above directions be complied with within three months of the communication to opposite parties. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room. "