PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & 2 ORS. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN/SECRECTARY, PATIALA PUNJAB Vs. SOHAN SINGH BHULLAR R/O. A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/respondent applied to the petitioner for a tube-well connection for agricultural purposes on 01.09.1986. A demand notice dated 30.3.2001was prepared by the petitioner. The case of the complainant/respondent is that the said notice was never served upon him. When he approached the office of the petitioner Board at Patiala, he was informed that a demand notice had already been issued to him and he should seek renewal of the said demand notice. The complainant therefore, obtained a renewed demand notice. He also deposited a sum of Rs.19,360.00 with the petitioners on 11.6.2004. The connection however, was not energized. On obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, the respondent / complainant came to know that his application had been ignored and the connections of the persons junior to him in seniority had been energized. According to him, bribe was demanded from him for energizing the connection. The complainant allegedly suffered huge loss due to his inability to irrigate the crop sown by him. He therefore, approached the concerned District Forum, with the following claim:

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioners, who admitted that the complainant had applied for a tube well connection and had deposited the requisite charges. According to the petitioners, the demand notice was duly issued to the complainant on 30.1.2001 but he had failed to comply with the said notice. It was further stated in the reply that the complainant did not receive the notice on account of his non-availability. It was also stated that the complainant was informed vide letter dated 25.5.2007 that extension could be given to him only on his complying with the conditions stipulated therein and that he should produce the copy of the Jamabandi of his land and file a fresh A &A form, photograph and affidavit.

(3.) The District Forum, vide its order dated 04.2.2009, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the said Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The aforesaid order however, was set aside by the State Commission on 12.09.2012 in an appeal filed by the complainant/respondent. Thereafter, the District Forum vide its order dated 16.09.2013, dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his complaint, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 12.4.2016, the State Commission allowed the said appeal and directed to petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.35,000.00 as compensation to the complainant along with cost of litigation quantified at Rs.15,000.00. It was further directed that if the said payment was not made within 45 days, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.