CHAIRMAN PSEB Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 27.1.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) As per averments in the complaint, the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) is a small agriculturist. At the time of Paddy crop, the Government had floated a policy for the installation of temoporary tubewell connection to the poor farmers. The complainant had applied for the tubewell connection and had deposited a sum of Rs.4,000/- on 12.7.2001. The temporary connection was duly installed by the appellant-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties ). Thereafter opposite party had formulated a scheme that the connection already installed could be treated as permanent subject to payment of expenses to be deposited with the opposite parties. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.600/- on 26.11.2001 for permanent connection. The connection was not released. The intention of the opposite parties was not bona fide. The opposite parties were trying to get the illegal gratification from the complainant. The complainant could not meet with the demand and the connection had not been released. It is then alleged in the complaint that the complainant had suffered loss as well as mental agony. A prayer was made before the District Forum that the opposite party be directed to release the tubewell connection already installed in the name of the complainant and the opposite party be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

(3.) Opposite parties had filed a joint reply. It has been admitted that the complainant had applied for temporary connection for Paddy crop season and had deposited Rs.4,000/- for that purpose. It is also admitted that a Commercial Circular No.70/01 was issued providing for connection for regularization of temporary connection. That circular provided that the length of LT line including service cable shall not be more than 110+20% i. e.132 metres for the individual connection and the overall total length of LT line shall not be more than 500 metres as per the existing instructions. The complainant had deposited Rs.600/- for regularization of temporary connection into the permanent connection. That amount was towards processing fee for regularization of the connection. It is then stated in the reply that the Junior Engineer concerned visited the spot and after verifying the spot he found that the overall total length of LT line in the case of the complainant was about 600 metres i. e. beyond the prescribed limit of 500 metres. It is then stated that the complainant was not entitled to regularization of temporary connection as such. According to the opposite parties the complainant was not entitled to any relief.