BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 188 of 2015

Date of Institution: 27.03.2015

Date of Decision: 27.11.2015

Harvinder Singh son of Arjun Singh, resident of B-678, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. 

Complainant

Versus

1. Amritsar Improvement Trust, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Chairman.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, South Sub Division, Amritsar through its SDO.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Sanjeet Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Rajesh Bhatia, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.2 : Sh.B.S.Sachdeva, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Harvinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that Opposite Party No.1 carved out a colony named Block A, B & D Extension Development Scheme, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar in May, 2011, namely 97 Acre Development Scheme, Ajnala Road, Amritsar with advertisement that the said colony would be most modern colony with all civil amenities to be provided to the  residents of said colony including roads, immediate underground power connection, provision of developed parks, street lights, modern sewerage system with the condition that the allottee shall construct/ develop the plot within three years from the date of allotment, failing which the allottee would be liable to pay development charges.  The complainant believing the said advertisement, purchased a plot No.B-678 in the said locality and sale deed was issued by Opposite Party No.1 in favour of the complainant on 19.8.2013. Thereafter, the complainant constructed the building on the said plot, within three years and shifted his residence in December, 2014.  After shifting the residence to the said property, the complainant  approached the Opposite Parties  to provide the promised amenities and the authorities of the Opposite Parties  promised that the same would be provided within few days. In spite of the fact that the complainant  has constructed the residential building and shifted the residence within the prescribed period of 3 years, the Opposite Party No.1 as per the advertisement has neither constructed any roads, nor developed the parks and nor street lights inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant. On account of non availability of street lights, the whole area is engulfed into dark thereby positing threat to the life and property to the residents and there always remains a fear of robbers, thieves and the stray animals also remain hidden in the bushes and parks, who come out in the dark causing threat to the residents and the residents are not able to come out of their houses after sun setting.  Moreover, due to non availability of pucca streets, the area always remains muddy and the residents are not able to move in the area after heavy rains and the residents are not able to go to their work places and children are also not able to go to schools/ colleges due to muddy roads. Even the residents have suffered injuries due to falling in the mud and rain water logged on the roads. The standing rain water has become the house of mosquitoes causing various diseases to the residents of the area.  Opposite Party No. 2 has not provided permanent electricity connection so far inspite of submissions and requests and complainant  has been provided only temporary connection charging heavy amount of Rs.20/- per unit approximately against approximate charges of Rs.7/- for the domestic purpose besides availability of subsidies. When the complainant  approached the Opposite Party No. 2  to provide permanent connection, then the Opposite Party No. 2 has stated that the area has not been handed over to them by Opposite Party No.1 nor same has been developed for providing permanent cabling nor proper land has been provided for construction of the power house by Opposite Party No.1 which was to be provided by Opposite Party No.1 and as such, Opposite Party No. 2  has expressed its inability to provide permanent electricity connection to the complainant. The sewerage system has also not been properly provided and several of the sewerage holes are without covers as a  result of which the sewerage pipes get blocked due to falling of garbage and dust and also such man-holes being uncovered have caused injuries to several residents and children playing in the area.  Hence, by not providing the promised facilities/ amenities by Opposite Parties, it is a clear cut deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party No.1 to provide permanent electric connection and also reimburse the excess electricity charges which the complainant  is being compelled to deposit from the date of shifting residence of the complainant  till the permanent electricity connection is provided; Opposite Party No.1 may be directed to pay the non-development charges to the complainant and to provide the promised facilities/ amenities like proper street lights, developed parks, pucca roads, proper several system in the locality. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the answering Opposite Party had constructed park and road even street lights were fixed in the area and all the amenities which were promised, were fulfilled. The answering Opposite Party had written letters to the Opposite Party No. 2  in which the answering Opposite Party demanded NOC from Opposite Party No. 2  for providing facilities to the complainant which he demands, but the Opposite Party No. 2  not replied about the letters of the answering Opposite Party, so the matter is pending by the negligent attitude of Opposite Party No. 2.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted the complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party No.2 is not maintainable. As per the record of Opposite Party No. 2, the said development scheme pertains to Opposite Party No.1 and till date the said scheme has not been handed over to the Opposite Party No. 2  by Opposite Party No.1 for providing the electricity connections. The fact of the case is that as per the existing arrangements of the Amritsar Improvement Trust, with the Opposite Party No. 2  vide memo No. 1016 dated 11.10.2013, it was agreed vide clause No.10 that the proposed/ connected load of the colony exceeds 4000 KVA, the supply of the colony shall be given at 66 KV supply voltage and the entire cost of 66 KV Sub Station/ Line alongwith allied equipment shall be borne by the Amritsar Improvement Trust and the land for 66 KV Sub Station shall also be provided free of cost by the Amritsar Improvement Trust. But accordingly, the Amritsar Improvement Trust authority got approved the connected load of 3868 KVA from the replying Opposite Party, but when the colony was developed as per the calculations of the required electricity load made at the spot, it was erected the load 7200 KVA against the approved load 3868 KVA, the spot was also inspected on 29.12.2014 by Chief Electric Officer. Therefore, accordingly a separate sub station was required to be established as the load exceed 4000 KVA, therefore, Amritsar Improvement Trust authority are required to sanction the load of 7200 KVA instead of 3868 KVA. As per the instructions of Supply Code 2014 of Punjab State Regulatory Commission, vide notification 5^th of November, 2014 of section 6 i.e. procedure for release of new electricity connection/ additional/ load/ demand, its sub section its section 6 rule 7(b) “ for planning the L.D. System of such colonies/ complexes or to issue NOC, the following guidelines may be adopted by the distribution licensee for assessment of expected connected load/ demand of such colonies/ complex and in the case the present colony load has exceeded 4000 KVA then as per section 6 rule 7(d), in case the expected demand of the colony/ complex computed as per (b) above exceeds 4000 KVA, the developer/ builder/ society/ owners/ association of residents/ occupiers shall also pay the system loading charges as providing in the cost data approved by the commission in addition to the charges payable as per regulation (c) above. In such a case, the erection or augmentation of grid sub-section, if required, shall be carried out by the licensee at its cost. However, in the case the grid sub section is required to be erected in the colony, the developer/ builder/ society/ owners/ association of residents/ occupiers shall provide the space and right of way, free of cost, if permissible or at nominal token money @ of Rs.1 per square meter. As such vide letter No.AIT/12566 dated 25.3.2015 written to the Engineer in Chief Commercial, Patiala, the Amritsar Improvement Trust has requested the Opposite Party No. 2 to issue revised NOC for the enhanced sanctioned load capacity i.e. 7200 KVA and as such the matter of issuance of NOC and the trust authorities have yet to obtain the said NOC from the higher authorities. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4.  Complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Rishi, Chairman Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/7.
6. Opposite Party No. 2  tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Lekh Raj, SDO Ex.OP2/A alongwith documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/10.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased a plot No.B-678 in Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar i.e. 97 Acre Development Scheme, Ajnala Road, Amritsar. Thereafter, the complainant constructed the building on the said plot and shifted his residence in December, 2014.  The complainant approached the Opposite Parties  to provide the basic amenities like motorable roads, street lights, electricity to the house of the complainant,  sewerage system, etc. The Opposite Party No. 2 has not provided the permanent electricity connection. The complainant has been provided only temporary electricity connection charging amount of Rs.20/- per unit approximately against approximate charges of Rs.7/- for the domestic purpose.  When the complainant  approached the Opposite Party No. 2  to provide permanent connection, then the Opposite Party No. 2   stated that the area has not been handed over to them by Opposite Party No.1 nor same has been developed for providing permanent cabling nor proper land has been provided for construction of the power house, which was to be provided by Opposite Party No.1 and as such, Opposite Party No. 2  has expressed its inability to provide permanent electricity connection to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 for not providing the aforesaid basic amenities to the scheme in which the house of the complainant  is situated.
9. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that the Opposite Party No.1 had constructed the motorable roads, even the street lights have been fixed in the area and sewerage system is also functioning. As regard, the electric connection to the house of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 had written letters to Opposite Party No. 2 vide which the Opposite Party No.1 demanded NOC from Opposite Party No. 2  for providing facility of electricity to the complainant, but the Opposite Party No. 2  did not reply to the letter of Opposite Party No.1. So, the matter is pending due to the negligent attitude of Opposite Party No. 2.
10. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No. 2  is that as per the record, the said development scheme pertains to Opposite Party No.1 and till date the said scheme has not been handed over to the Opposite Party No. 2  by Opposite Party No.1 for providing the electricity connections to the inhabitants. As per the existing arrangements of the Amritsar Improvement Trust, as per memo No. 1016 dated 11.10.2013, it was agreed vide clause No.10 that if proposed/ connected load of the colony exceeds 4000 KVA, the supply of the colony shall be given at 66 KV supply voltage and the entire cost of 66 KV Sub Station/ Line alongwith allied equipment shall be borne by the Amritsar Improvement Trust and the land for 66 KV Sub Station shall also be provided to Opposite Party No. 2  by Opposite Party No.1 free of cost. The Trust authority got approved the connected load of 3868 KVA from the Opposite Party No. 2, but when the colony was developed as per the calculations of the required electricity load made at the spot, it  erected the load 7200 KVA against the approved load 3868 KVA, the spot was also inspected on 29.12.2014 by Chief Electric Officer. Therefore, a separate sub station was required to be established as the load exceed 4000 KVA, therefore, Trust authority are required to sanction the load of 7200 KVA instead of 3868 KVA. As per the instructions of Supply Code 2014 of Punjab State Regulatory Commission, vide notification dated  5^th of November, 2014 for planning the L.D. System of such colonies/ complexes or to issue NOC, the following guidelines mentioned in section 6 rule 7(d) are to be adopted by the distribution licensee for assessment of expected connected load/ demand of such colonies/ complex and in the present colony,  load  exceeded 4000 KVA then as per section 6 rule 7(d), in case the expected demand of the colony/ complex computed as per (b) above exceeds 4000 KVA, the developer/ occupiers, etc. shall also pay the system loading charges approved by the commission in addition to the charges payable as per regulation (c) above. The erection or augmentation of grid sub-section, if required, shall be carried out by the licensee at its cost. In the present case, the grid sub section is required to be erected in the colony, the developer i.e. Amritsar Improvement Trust shall provide the space and right of way, free of cost, if permissible or at nominal token money @ of Rs.1 per square meter. As such vide letter No.AIT/12566 dated 25.3.2015 written to the Engineer in Chief Commercial, Patiala, the Amritsar Improvement Trust has requested the Opposite Party No. 2 to issue revised NOC for the enhanced sanctioned load capacity i.e. 7200 KVA and as such the matter of issuance of NOC and the trust authorities have yet to obtain the said NOC from the higher authorities, neither the Opposite Party No.1 has deposited the required money with Opposite Party No. 2. Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2.
11. However, during the proceedings of this case, Sh.Ninder Pal, SDO, South Sub Division, Commercial, PSPCL, Amritsar of Opposite Party No. 2  got recorded his statement that Opposite Party No.1-Amritsar Improvement Trust has made payment of Rs.2,11,90,069/- vide demand draft No.209435 dated 28.10.2015, on 30.10.2015 in favour of Opposite Party No. 2 on account of costs of installment/ construction of 66 KV Sub Station  and Opposite Party No. 2  shall release the connection to the applicant under rules and regulations of Opposite Party No. 2, at the earliest. Later on, ld.counsel for the complainant stated at bar that Opposite Party No. 2  has provided the electricity connection under DS category to the complainant  and Opposite Party No.1 has also been providing basic amenities to the colony and they have also assured that such amenities shall be provided to the colony in question at the earliest.
12. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the Opposite Party No.1 has allotted the plot in question to the complainant  and the sale deed was also issued in favour of the complainant  in the year 2013 and the complainant  constructed the house and shifted his residence in December, 2014. During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the Opposite Party No.1-Amritsar Improvement Trust has been making efforts to provide basic amenities i.e. motorable roads, sewerage system, street lights, etc. He further stated at bar that Opposite Party No. 2  has also now provided permanent electricity connection under DS category to the complainant, but this connection should have been provided to the complainant  at the time of shifting of residence by the complainant  in the said colony i.e. at the plot allotted to the complainant,  in December, 2014. From the entire record, it is clear that as per the agreement between Opposite Party No.1 vide Memo No. 1016 dated 11.10.2013, clause No.10 if the proposed/ connected load of the colony exceeds 4000 KVA, the supply of electricity to the said colony shall be given at 66 KV supply voltage and the entire cost of 66 KV Sub Station/ Line alongwith allied equipment shall be borne by the Amritsar Improvement Trust and the land for 66 KV Sub Station shall also be provided to Opposite Party No. 2  by Opposite Party No.1 free of cost. But the Opposite Party No.1 did not do so and Opposite Party No.1 had not made the payment to Opposite Party No. 2 in this regard. So, the Opposite Party No. 2 could not supply the regular permanent electricity connections to the inhabitants of the locality/ colony including the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 has now made payment of Rs.2,11,90,069/- vide demand draft No.209435 dated 28.10.2015 to Opposite Party No. 2, on 30.10.2015 on account of costs of installation/ construction of 66 KV Sub Station  and now Opposite Party No. 2 after completion of all the formalities, supplied the regular electric connection under DS category to the complainant  and other inhabitants of the locality. All this happened due to delay in depositing the requisite amount for the installation/ construction of 66 KV Sub Station by Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No. 2 and the complainant  has to pay extra amount of electricity consumption to Opposite Party No. 2  because the complainant  was given temporary electricity connection with higher rate of electricity than under DS category. As such, the complainant  has suffered huge loss all due to  lapse on the part of  Opposite Party No.1 for making the payment of amount for the installation/ construction of 66 KV Sub Station to Opposite Party No. 2, very late. So, certainly, Opposite Party No.1 is in deficiency of service qua the complainant and other inhabitants of the colony/ scheme, as a result of which, the complainant suffered monetary loss as well as harassment.
13. Resultantly, we partly accept the complaint with costs and the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay the litigation expenses to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,000/-.  File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 27.11.2015.                                                            (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                        President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                                        Member                         Member