AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 29.01.2013 of the State Commission in appeal no. 913 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 22.05.2012 of the District Commission in complaint no. 02 of 20012.
We have heard the authorized representative of the legal heirs of the deceased complainant (the petitioner herein) and the learned counsel for the opposite party electricity distribution corporation (the respondents no. 1 & no. 2 herein) and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 22.05.2012 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 29.01.2013 of the State Commission and the petition.
The case of the complainant is that he applied for a tubewell connection under the drip irrigation scheme and deposited Rs. 1500/- as security on 16.12.2008. The corporation ( \ its predecessor board) issued a demand notice on 05.04.2010. The complainant deposited Rs. 200/-as electrical inspection fee by challan generated by the corporation on 09.04.2010. He also prepared banker’s cheque / draft for Rs. 27,000/- for deposit as service connection charges. He presented the said banker’s cheque / draft for Rs. 27,000/- and the electrical test report for the tubewell connection to an official of the corporation on 09.04.2010 but the latter refused to accept the same saying that as per instructions from higher authorities at present service connection charges and test reports are not being received / entertained. He visited the office of the corporation time and again to deposit the service connection charges and test report. His two grandsons also visited the office of the corporation number of times. Ultimately the corporation accepted deposit of the service connection charges of Rs. 27,000/- on 02.06.2011 at which time he was also made to deposit Rs. 3500/- as demand notice renewal fee. He came to know that a third person (Mr. Kheta Singh) deposited the service connection charges and test report on 09.04.2010 and his connection had been released. The complainant was aggrieved that he too had visited the office of the corporation on 09.04.2010 but his service connection charges and test report were not accepted by saying that there were higher orders to the contrary but a similarly placed third person’s charges and report were accepted on the same day and a connection was also thereafter released to him. Subsequently the corporation issued another demand notice on 23.11.2011 asking for an additional deposit of Rs. 71,437/- in accordance with the revised rates in this regard. The complainant was further aggrieved that when he was earlier ready and willing to deposit the charges of Rs. 27,000/- on 09.04.2010 itself which was in accordance with the then applicable rates, the rates revised subsequently should not be imposed on him.
The corporation’s case was that one requirement of the demand notice dated 05.04.2010 was that a copy of the record of rights ( jamabandi ) countersigned by the tehsildar should also be provided. The complainant provided the same significantly belatedly. Since it was countersigned on 29.04.2011 the same could not have been available on a prior date i.e. 09.04.2010 when the complainant averred to have gone with the service connection charges and test report to the office of the corporation. That the complainant in fact visited the office of the corporation on 09.04.2010 was denied.
The District Commission allowed the complaint, on contest, and, for its reasons recorded, it directed the corporation to release the connection and to withdraw the additional demand of Rs. 71,437/- raised vide notice dated 23.11.2011. It also ordered an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation.
The corporation appealed before the State Commission.
The State Commission vide its impugned Order 29.01.2013 allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.
The instant revision has then been preferred by the complainant before this Commission.
It is admitted by the corporation that an office memorandum was issued on 10.11.2006 on the subject of ‘Release of tubewell connections on priority to the farmers installing Drip / Micro Sprinkler System’. The soil and water conservation department issued a ‘certificate Regarding Electricity Connection on Priority Basis’ on 03.12.2008 certifying that the micro irrigation system had been installed in 2008-09. The certificate continued reference to the corporation’s memo dated 10.11.2006. The complainant made his application on 16.12.2008. He paid Rs. 1500/- as security on 16.12.2008. A demand notice for Rs. 27,000/- was issued to him on 05.04.2010. A challan of Rs. 200/- for payment in the treasury (through bank) in respect of electrical inspection fee was generated by the corporation and the said deposit was made in the bank on 09.04.2010.
It is admitted that record of rights ( jamabandi ) under the signatures of the patwari was available on record. However it is contended that the record of rights ( jamabandi ) countersigned by the tehsildar as per one condition of the demand notice was got countersigned only on 29.04.2011 and therefore it could not have been attempted to have been submitted on or before 09.04.2010 as claimed by the complainant.
However it is not the complainant’s case that he had tried to submit a copy of the record of rights ( jamabandi ) countersigned by the tehsildar on 09.04.2010 or had made such countersigned copy prior to 09.04.2010. His case is that a copy of the record of rights ( jamabandi ) signed only by the patwari had been made available much prior to 09.04.2010 and there was no need to provide a copy of the record of rights countersigned by the tehsildar since there was no dispute or question regarding his record of rights. His case is that he only got a copy countersigned on 29.04.2011 since the corporation kept on harassing him.
As such the short point involved is whether in fact the complainant had visited the office of the corporation on 09.04.2010 and whether his bankker’s cheque / draft for Rs. 27,000/- and test report had been refused to be accepted by an official and also that whether the absence of the counter signatures of the tehsildar on the copy of the record of rights made available under the signatures of the patwari was fatal to his case.
The corporation issued a memo regarding priority connections to farmers for drip irrigation systems on 10.11.2006. The soil and water conservation department certified on 03.12.2008 that the micro irrigation system had been installed in 2008-09. The complainant made his application on 16.12.2008. He paid Rs. 1500/- as security on 16.12.2008. A demand notice for Rs. 27,000/-was issued to him on 05.04.2010. A challan of Rs. 200/- for payment in the treasury (through bank) in respect of electrical inspection fee was generated by the corporation and the said deposit was made in the bank on 09.04.2010. The concerned bank (State Bank of Patiala) has given information under the RTI Act, 2006 that a demand draft for Rs. 27,000/- was prepared in favour of the corporation ( \ its predecessor board) on 09.04.2010 and the same was cancelled on 28.04.2010.
It appears highly improbable that the complainant got a bank draft prepared on 09.04.2010 but then did not visit the office of the corporation at all. The preponderance of probability is that he did repeated rounds visiting the corporation between 09.04.2010 and 28.04.2010 after which he got the draft cancelled from the bank. He subsequently did manage to make the payment of Rs. 27,000/- on 02.06.2011 which was accepted by the corporation and when he was also made to pay demand notice renewal fee of Rs. 3500/-. All this go to support that at the relevant time i.e. on 09.04.2010 the complainant had in fact attempted to deposit the charges and test report but the same were refused.
It is admitted by the corporation that a copy of the record of rights signed by the patwari was available with it. Its only contention in this respect is that mentioned as a condition in the demand notice the copy should have been countersigned by the tehsildar but a countersigned copy was provided only on 29.04.2011 by which time the new rates had come into place. The corporation contends that since the countersignature was obtained only on 29.04.2011 on the one hand the complainant could not have visited the office of the corporation on 09.04.2010 and on the other hand his application was incomplete and could therefore only be considered at the since revised rates when it became complete and as such the additional demand of Rs. 71,437/- raised on 23.11.2011 was justified.
However the complainant does not deny that a countersigned copy of the record of rights was not available on 09.04.2010. His case is that there was no need for it and neither was it asked for by any verbal or written communication prior to or on 09.04.2010 when his charges and report were not received by an official of the corporation. He ultimately got the countersignatures on 29.04.2011 at the insistence of the corporation but such insistence in his opinion was wrong and unjustified.
In response to an application under the RTI Act the corporation has given information that “The fresh Jamabandi is attached for same year at the time of submission of file; That counter signed is not done any on Jamabandi from Tehsildar; Department can accept report of Patwari and Jamabandi.” Learned counsel for the corporation. fairly admits that the practice in the corporation ( \ its predecessor board) was that the record of rights ( jamabandi ) issued by the revenue department from the level of the patwari who is the custodian of the record in the field was generally accepted and only in doubtful cases verification of the jamabandi by way of countersignatures of the tehsildar who has a safe second copy of the jamabandi in the tehsil is asked for. The official of the corporation present in person confirms. That being so it is clear that there was no lapse on the part of the complainant in furnishing the record of rights issued by the custodian of the record i.e. the patwari . It is also clear that the sole defence of the corporation that countersignatures of the tehsildar were mandatory else the application was incomplete fails.
There is nothing on record to show that there is any dispute of any kind in respect of the record of rights regarding the complainant’s land, neither is the same being contended by the corporation. In the ordinary course of things if the countersignature was mandatory but the complainant had submitted a copy signed only by the custodian of the record i.e. the patwari the corporation would have communicated this lacuna to the complainant. But this would have been the subject matter of examination on file. The official sitting at the receipt window could not have refused acceptance of documents or charges or report (for placing on file for processing). And if in the processing of the file such lacuna had been detected the same would have been communicated to the complainant in the normal course. But there is no such communication on record, and neither is it being contended by the corporation that it had made any such communication. The position being so, it is clear that the lack of counter signatures on 09.04.2010 was not fatal to the application in the present case.
It is also not disputed that the charges and report of a third person (Mr. Kheta Singh) were accepted on 09.04.2010 and a connection was issued to him in normal course.
In the light of the above examination we are of the considered view that the District Commission has correctly appraised the facts and evidence and has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The State Commission on the other hand has shown scant application of mind in mechanically accepting the corporation’s contention that the countersignatures not being available on 09.04.2010 was fatal to the case when the examination and arguments before this Commission make it clear that such countersignatures were not mandatory and were not necessary in this case as there was no question or dispute in respect of the record of rights of the complainant’s land.
The complainant installed the infrastructure for the drip irrigation scheme in 2008. He made his application for an electricity connection in 2008. He went with the charges and report to the office of the corporation in 2010. He filed his complaint in 2012. The District Commission made its award in 2012. The State Commission passed its impugned Order in 2013. We are now in 2022. The efflux of time has added to his loss and injury.
The complainant had dutifully fulfilled the requirements in 2010. Till date his connection has not been released. And it belies reason that the revised rates as applicable in 2011 can in any justifiable manner be asked for when he had already fulfilled his requirements in 2010.
The acts of the corporation have been deficient and unfair & deceptive. It has summarily dismissed the complainant by not accepting his charges and report in 2010 and has continuously litigated before the District Commission and the State Commission and then this Commission from 2012 onwards on the sole ground that the countersignatures were mandatory but as the things unfold it is now admitted that the countersignatures were not mandatory at all and the signature of the custodian of the record i.e. the patwari was sufficient when there was no dispute in respect of the record of rights as in the present case. But yet the same was not accepted at the relevant time in 2010 and the same intransigence was continuing till today in 2022. Similarly situate persons have been differently treated, the one, a third person (Mr. Kheta Singh) considered in the normal course and the other, the complainant, discriminated against on the same day. The deficient and unfair & deceptive acts of the corporation as evinced in this case contain ingredients of both ‘deficiency’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ under the Act 1986. Both terms (‘deficiency’ and ‘unfair trade practice’) are plainly defined in the Act itself (section 2(1)(g) and section 2(1)(r)). In respect of ‘unfair trade practice’ we may elaborate that the list provided under section 2(1)(r) of the Act 1986 is illustrative and not comprehensive or exhaustive. As such, an unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, as may be judiciously determined on facts and reason after fair and objective appraisal of the evidence and material on record, would qualify as ‘unfair trade practice’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(r) . All this calls for reproval.
The revision petition is allowed. The impugned Order dated 29.01.2013 of the State Commission is set aside. The Order dated 22.05.2012 of the District Forum is upheld and confirmed. The opposite party corporation (the respondent herein) through its chairman / managing director is directed to comply with the award made by the District Commission within six weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.
In addition, the corporation through its chairman / managing director shall pay an amount of Rs. 50 thousand to the complainant to defray cost of litigation (from 2013 to 2022) in the revisional proceedings before this Commission and shall also deposit an amount of Rs. 50 thousand in the ‘Consumer Legal Aid Account’ of the District Commission within six weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘ enforcement ’ and for ‘ penalty ’, as per the law.
The corporation, through its chairman / managing director, is also advised to inculcate accountability and responsibility and to imbibe systemic improvements for future so that the ordinary consumers are not selectively put to capricious highhandedness by any official(s) and that similarly placed persons are similarly treated without discrimination in accordance with the rules and as per the law.
At this stage, learned counsel for the corporation submits and requests that if the contentions raised on behalf of the corporation are not finding favour with this Commission, then in the peculiar facts & circumstances and specificities of this particular case it may be ordered that the decision in this case will not be considered to be a precedent.
We find that the submission has been made by the learned counsel in fairness and in propriety. Having regard to the peculiar facts & circumstances and specificities of this present case, we deem it proper to observe that the decision in this case shall not be treated as a precedent.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.