| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 240 of 2015 Date of Institution: 16.4.2015 Date of Decision: 10.12.2015 Kusam Devgan wife of Sh.Subhash Chander, resident of 679, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. Complainant Versus - Amritsar Improvement Trust, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Chairman, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.
- 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: In person For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Jagdeep Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2 : Ms.Neena Kapoor, Advocate Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Kusam Devgan under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she purchased plot No.679, in B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar falling under 97 Acre Development Scheme, Ajnala Road, Amritsar. Complainant alleges that as per the condition mentioned in the information brochure of application form related with allotment, the complainant/ owner have to construct the plot within three years from the date of allotment of the plot and the complainant constructed the building/ house on this plot for residential purpose and residing in this house since 31.3.2014 with temporary electricity connection and the complainant charged the bill at almost double the rate of domestic connection by Opposite Party No.2 as per rules of temporary connection. Complainant alleges that husband of the complainant applied for permanent electricity connection for residential purpose with Opposite Party No.2 and deposited Rs.3135/- on 12.8.2013 vide receipt No. 475, but the electricity connection was not released till date because of delay in providing infrastructure related to the electricity supply, by Opposite Party No.1. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to release permanent electric connection. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that plot No.679, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar was allotted to Smt.Kuldip Kaur wife of Pavittar Singh on 10.5.2011 and was subsequently transferred to the complainant on 8.2.2012 vide letter No.AIT/SS/10144. As per the averment of the complainant, temporary electricity connection already existed in the premises of the complainant and as such, there is no deficiency in service in providing electricity infrastructure by Opposite Party No.1 and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation from Opposite Party No.1. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that Opposite Party No.2 did not release the electricity connection till date because of delay in providing infrastructure related to electricity supply by Opposite Party No.1. The release of connection is as per revised NOC by PSPCL to Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar for 97 Acres Development Scheme, Ranjit Avenue, Ajnala Road, Amritsar (RID-14880). The permanent connection is to be released subject to terms and conditions in view of revised NOC, the expenditure for layout of electrical layout system of the project is approved. The amount shall have to be secured from the developer and in case of default of developer, the same has to be deposited by consumers to PSPCL and release of electricity connection shall be governed by clause 6.7.1 of supply code 2014 effective from 1.1.2015 as amended from time to time. In case the developer fails to develop the requisite electrical LD system or deposit the costs to PSPCL and consequently PSPCL is not able to give electric connections to the prospective consumers/ owners/ residents of the plots, the responsibility of such inaction shall solely be on Developer Consumer has to provide certain documents of ownership papers of the property alongwith NOC etc. then only permanent connection is released, but the complainant has failed to provide all those requirements and connection could not be given. So, there is no question of compensation to be granted to the complainant alongwith interest. Connections are released subject to fulfillment of statutory requirements of the PSPCL subject to deposit of certain documents in accordance of regulation 6.7 of supply code and as per other regulations of supply code which has not been fulfilled in the present case. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4.
- Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Kewal Singh, Ex.OP1/1.
- Opposite Party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Narinder Kumar, SDO Ex.OP2/1 alongwith document Ex.OP2/2.
- 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.
- 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 plot No.679, in B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar falling under 97 Acre Development Scheme, Ajnala Road, Amritsar. Thereafter, the complainant constructed the building on the said plot and shifted her residence on 31.3.2014. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties to provide the basic amenities particularly the electricity to the house of the complainant, but the Opposite Party No.2 has not provided the permanent electricity connection, however, the complainant has been provided temporary electricity connection by Opposite Party No.2 and 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.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that with regard to 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.
- 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 was erected the load 7200 KVA against the approved load 3868 KVA, the spot was also inspected on 29.12.2014 by Chief Electrical Officer. Therefore, a separate sub station was required to be established as the load exceeds 4000 KVA, therefore, Trust authorities 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 5th 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 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/ 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 station 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.
- However, during the proceedings of this case, Opposite Party No. 2 has stated 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, the complainant stated at bar that Opposite Party No. 2 has provided the electricity connection under DS category to the complainant.
- 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 and the complainant constructed the house and shifted her residence on 31.3.2014. 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. However, during the course of arguments, complainant has stated at bar that Opposite Party No. 2 has now provided permanent electricity connection under DS category to the complainant in the last month, 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 March, 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 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.
- 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: 10.12.2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
