Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Through Its Sr. Xen, Ds Division and Others Vs. Sukhdev Singh and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Judgment:

Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member:

1. This order will dispose of following three appeals i.e. First Appeal No. 1384 of 2012(Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. Sukhdev Singh), First Appeal No. 1385 of 2012(Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. Gurmail Singh) and First Appeal No. 1372 of 2012(Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Nahar Singh). All these appeals are filed against the same order dated 7.8.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur(in short the “District Forum”) and the same are disposed off in a single order as the question for consideration in all these appeals is the same. The facts are taken from ‘First Appeal No. 1384 of 2012 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.

2. The appeals were filed with the delay of 10 days and misc. applications No. 2104 and 2106 of 2012 were also filed, which are supported by an affidavits. No replies to the applications for condonation of delay are filed.

3. We have perused the applications.

4. Same reasons have been given in the applications, which justify the delay.

5. For the reasons mentioned in the applications for condonation of delay and in the interest of justice to decide the appeals on merits, the delay of 10 days in filing the First Appeal Nos. 1384 of 2012 and 1385 of 2012 are condoned.

Misc. Applications stands disposed of.

M.A. No. 2081 of 2012

6. The First Appeal No. 1372 of 2012 is filed with the delay of 6 days and misc. application No. 2081 and 2106 of 2012 was filed, which is supported by an affidavit. No reply to the application for condonation of delay is filed.

7. We have perused the application.

8. Reason has been given in the application, which justify the delay.

9. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and in the interest of justice to decide the appeal on merits, the delay of 6 days in filing First Appeal No. 1372 of 2012 is condoned.

Misc. Applications stands disposed of.

Main case

10. Brief facts of the case are that Sh. Kartar Singh father of the respondent applied for motor tubewell connection in the year 1990 and deposited Rs. 160/- as security vide receipt dated 6.3.1990. The father of the appellant died after applying for tubewell motor connection. After his death the respondent and his brother Raj Singh had become beneficiaries as legal heirs of deceased Kartar Singh. Sh. Raj Singh also died and his son Bhupinder Singh had stepped into his shoes, who had given no objection if the motor connection was released in the name of the respondent.

11. It was further pleaded that demand notice was issued in the name of Kartar Singh and an amount of Rs. 24,340/- was deposited by the respondent with the appellants vide receipt No. 59 dated 18.1.2007 and also complied with all the formalities which were required as per the demand notice and submitted the test report with the appellants.

12. The respondent approached many times to appellant No. 2 to inquire the status of his application and for the release of the tubewell connection but matter was put off on one pretext or the other. The appellants under the political influence released the tubewell connections to the other applicants, who had applied and complied with the demand notice after the respondent and were much junior in seniority list arbitrarily ignoring the seniority list. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellants may be directed to release the tubewell connection immediately in the name of the respondent and to pay Rs. 30,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, harassment and Rs. 60,000/- as financial loss suffered by the respondent as well as Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.

13. Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellants. It was admitted that Kartar Singh father of the respondent had applied for tubewell connection in 1990 and also deposited Rs. 160/- as application fee with the appellants. The name of all the applicants for tubewell connection/AP connections were entered by the appellants in its Service Register. No tubewell connection had been released by the appellants out of turn. The AP connections were released strictly following the seniority list. It was also admitted that the demand notice was issued in the name of Kartar Singh applicant and an amount of Rs. 24,140/- vide receipt No. 59 dated 18.1.2007 was deposited in compliance of the demand notice by the respondent and also submitted test report alongwith affidavit duly attested by Notary Public. Vide notification 33/2009, instructions/guidelines were issued for the release of AP tubewell connections as fully mentioned in para No. 3(c) of the reply. The name of the respondent was at Sr. No. 133 and the connection will be released to the respondent as and when his turn comes.

14. The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the appellants to release the tubewell connection to the respondent/ complainant immediately and to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and loss of crops and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. The order shall be complied within 60 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.

15. The appeal was filed by the appellants on the grounds that the respondent was having no locus-standi to file the complaint and also does not come under the definition of ‘consumer, the complaint was hopelessly time barred, the order of the District Forum is against the circulars of the Board, as such, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside.

16. The counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Service Connection Order vide Book No. 29908 and serial No. 023 has already been released on 22.1.2013 and the same is running at the spot vide Account No. AP-07/0496, as such, the appeal has become infructuous. It was further prayed that as the tubewell connection has already been released so the amount of Rs. 30,000/- awarded on account of compensation and loss of crops and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses may be waived off.

17. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the tubewell connection was applied by his father in the year 1990 and the same was released in the year of 2013 i.e. after 23 years, as such, there is no ground to waive off the compensation and litigation expenses.

18. We have perused the grounds of appeal. The AP connection was applied by Sh. Kartar Singh father of the respondent, who died on 26.1.1999 i.e. before the issuance of demand notice. After the death of Kartar Singh, the respondent and his brother had not applied for the change of name to the appellants.

19. The demand notice vide memo No. 1536 dated 19.4.2001 was issued by the appellants in the name of Kartar Singh-applicant father of the respondent but the same was not complied with and no information was also given by the respondent to the appellants regarding the death of his father. The respondent made an application dated 20.11.2006 for extension of time of the demand notice in the name of his father, who has already died pleading that the demand notice, which was received had been lost, as such, the time for the compliance of the demand notice may be extended without informing the death of his father Kartar Singh and signed the application by the respondent as Kartar Singh himself and deposited Rs. 24,340/- in the name of his dead father. The act of the respondent was fraud and he was liable to be tried under the IPC but no action was taken by the appellants. Even the respondent had not mentioned the date of death of his father in the complaint and also tried to cheat the District Forum. If the real facts were pleaded by the appellant in his complaint then the complaint of the respondent was liable to be dismissed but the respondent succeeded to get the order of release of tubewell connection in his name from the District Forum.

20. There is no delay on the part of the appellants as per the above discussion, as such, we are of the view that the respondent is not entitled for any compensation or litigation expenses. It is held by the Honble National Commission in case “Jaswant Industries versus Chander Prakash Dewra”, 2012 (2) CPR 254 (NC) that ‘complainant cannot claim compensation for his own lapses and observed in para No. 7(relevant part) as follows:-

“………As the Bus was delivered in October, 2008, when the elections were held in November, 2008, the whole purpose behind this investment was defeated. Therefore, the State Commission should have awarded the entire cost of the vehicle in favour of the Complainant. This argument does not have any substance when seen in the background of the evidence laid before the State Commission. The appellant/Complainant had the opportunity to challenge the stand of the OP/Jaswant Industries, Jodhpur before the State Commission viz. that there was no written agreement between the parties for execution of this work and the delay was caused by the delayed supply of materials by the Complainant himself.”

21. In view of the above discussion, it is proved that the respondent himself was at fault, as such, the amount of compensation and litigation expenses awarded by the District Forum is not justified and the same is waived off/quashed. The order passed by the District Forum is modified to that extent. The appellants have already released the tubewell connection, as such, the appeal of the appellants is partly accepted.

22. However, in the interest of justice, as the tubewell connection has already been released in the name of the respondent so no action would be taken against the respondent.

23. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the tubewell connection has already been released to the respondent/applicant on 24.1.2013 and the AP connection is running at the spot and Account No. AP-07/0494 is allotted to the respondent by the appellants, as such, the appeal has become infructuous. It was further prayed that as the tubewell connection has already been released the amount of Rs. 30,000/- i.e. compensation and loss of crops and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses may be waived off.

24. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the tubewell connection was applied by the respondent in the year 1990 and the same was released in the year of 2013 i.e. after 23 years, as such, there is no ground to waive off the compensation and litigation expenses as the respondent has suffered gross loss of crops due to non-release of tubewell connection by the appellants. The appellants under political influence released the tubewell connections to the applicants, who had applied and complied with the demand notice after the respondent and were much junior in seniority list arbitrarily ignoring the seniority list, as such, there was also unfair trade practice/deficiency in service on their part. The District Forum has granted the compensation and litigation expenses on very lower side and the respondent is also a poor farmer, as such, the order of the District Forum regarding the grant of compensation and litigation expenses may not be waived off.

25. We have perused the record and grounds of appeal.

26. The demand notice was issued to the respondent on 10.4.2001 by the appellants, which is annexed as Annexure A-4 with the grounds of appeal but the respondent only on 4.9.2006 i.e. after 5-½ years filed an application Annexure A-5 with the grounds of appeal for the extension of time of the demand notice till 9.1.2007. The appellants accepted the prayer of the respondent. The respondent complied with the demand notice and submitted the test report on 14.11.2006 and deposited Rs. 31,840/- vide receipt No. 247 dated 14.11.2006.

27. So as per the above circumstances there was delay on the part of the respondent himself and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.

28. In view of the above discussion, it is proved that the respondent himself was at fault for not complying with the demand notice when the same was issued so the amount of compensation and litigation expenses awarded by the District Forum is not justified, as such, the same is waived off/quashed. The order passed by the District Forum is modified to this extent. The appellants have already released the tubewell connection, as such, the appeal of the appellants is partly accepted.

29. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the tubewell connection has already been released to the respondent/applicant on 24.1.2013 and the AP connection is running at the spot vide Account No. AP-07/0493, as such, the appeal has become infructuous. It was further prayed that as the tubewell connection has already been released, as such, the amount of Rs. 30,000/- i.e. compensation and loss of crops and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses may be waived off.

30. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the tubewell connection was applied by the respondent in the year 1990 and the same was released in the year of 2013 i.e. after 23 years, as such, there is no ground to waive off the compensation and litigation expenses as the respondent has suffered gross loss of crops due to non-release of tubewell connection by the appellants. The appellants under political influence released the tubewell connections to the applicants, who had applied and complied with the demand notice after the respondent and were much junior in seniority list arbitrarily ignoring the seniority list, as such, there was also unfair trade practice/deficiency in service on their part. The District Forum has granted the compensation and litigation expenses on very lower side and the respondent is also a poor farmer, as such, the order of the District Forum regarding the grant of compensation and litigation expenses may not be waived off.

31. We have perused the record and grounds of appeal.

32. The demand notice was issued to the respondent on 10.4.2001 by the appellants but the respondent only on 4.10.2006 i.e. after 5-½ years complied with the demand notice and submitted the test report and deposited Rs. 24,540/- vide receipt No. 541 dated 4.10.2006.

33. So as per the above circumstances there was delay on the part of the respondent himself and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.

34. It is proved that the respondent himself was at fault, as such, the amount of compensation and litigation expenses awarded by the District Forum is not justified, as such, the same is waived off/quashed. The order passed by the District Forum is modified to this extent. The appellants have already released the tubewell connection, as such, the appeal of the appellants is partly accepted.

35. In view of the above discussion, it is proved that there was no lapse on the part of the appellants-P.S.P.C.L. rather the respondents themselves were at fault, as such, all the three appeals are partly accepted and the impugned orders are modified to the above extent.

36. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 5.4.2013 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.

37. The appellants-P.S.P.C.L. in F.A. No. 1384 of 2012 had deposited an amount of Rs. 17,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 17,500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.

38. The appellants-P.S.P.C.L. in F.A. No. 1385 of 2012 had deposited an amount of Rs. 17,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 17,500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.

39. The appellants-P.S.P.C.L. in F.A. No. 1372 of 2012 had deposited an amount of Rs. 17,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 17,500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.

40. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

41. Copy of this order be placed on First Appeal No. 1385 of 2012(Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. Gurmail Singh) and First Appeal No. 1372 of 2012(Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Nahar Singh).