Decided on October 23,2020

Punjab State Power Corporation Respondents


DINESH SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER, J. - (1.) This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', challenging the Order dated 08.06.2015 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission', in F.A. No. 975 of 2014 arising out of the Order dated 02.06.2014 in C.C. No. 531 of 2013 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur, hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'. The Petitioner herein, Mr. Devinder Singh, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Complainant'. The Respondent herein, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Opposite Party'. 2. Heard arguments from learned Counsel for the Complainant and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party on 17.08.2020. Perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 02.06.2014 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Commission and the Petition. 3. Brief facts of the case have been succinctly articulated by the State Commission in paras 2 and 3 of its Order of 08.06.2015:
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant applied for an electric motor connection with OP No.3 on 12.2.1987 by depositing the requisite fee, vide receipt No.58 dated 12.2.1987. On 23.9.1992, he again applied for one electric connection with OP No.3 and deposited requisite fee, vide receipt No. 397 dated 23.9.1992. These connections were applied for irrigating his land to earn his livelihood. He visited the office of the OPs a number of times for the release of these electricity connections, but each time the matter was put off by the OPs on one ground or the other. He also filed an application under RTI Act with OP No.3, who in its reply, given vide letter No. 2080 dated 29.7.2013, informed him that a demand notice was issued to him vide Memo number 194 dated 26.2.1998. It was pleaded that he never received any notice dated 26.2.1998 from the OPs and he came to know about the same only when he sought information under RTI Act. It was further pleaded that he was ready to fulfil all the requirements of PSPCL for issuance of the electric motor connection with the condition that his seniority should not be affected in any manner and was also ready to pay interest, if any, on the requisite fee. A legal notice dated 26.10.2013 was served upon the OPs, but of no avail. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant prayed that they be directed to allot the motor connection to him. Costs and compensation were also prayed.
(3.) Upon notice, OPs contested the complaint and filed joint written reply admitting therein that the complainant applied for one AP electric connection for 5 BHP motor under general category and deposited Rs.510/- as ACD, vide receipt No. 58/021701 dated 12.2.1987. It was pleaded that thereafter they introduced Self Finance Scheme for the AP electric connections, under which those applicants, who applied for AP electric connection under General Category, were entitled to get their applications transferred under said priority category, subject to deposit of Rs.1000/-. The complainant deposited the said earnest money of Rs.1000/- vide BA16 number 397 dated 23.9.1992 for adopting the Self Finance Scheme. Accordingly, his name was entered in the service register. As per seniority, demand notice number 194 dated 26.2.1998 was issued to him, vide which he was asked to deposit Rs.24,000/- as connection fee, but he failed to comply with the demand notice and to deposit the connection fee of Rs.24,000/- and an amount of Rs.75/- in favour of Chief Electrical Inspector within three months. Therefore, his application stood automatically cancelled, as per their instructions. It was further pleaded that he never approached them for compliance of the demand notice or for release of the connection. It was admitted that the complainant submitted an application dated 17.7.2013 seeking information under RTI Act, which was supplied through letter No. 2080 dated 29.7.2013. They pleaded that as per law the complaint of the complainant was not maintainable because he himself failed to comply with the demand notice within stipulated period.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.