Punjab

Sangrur

CC/865/2021

Satpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assitant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amrik Singh Dullat

04 Jul 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

          

                                                                         Complaint No.   865

 Instituted on  :   09.07.2018

                                                                          Decided on :      04.07.2023 

 

1. Satpal Singh Son of Ajaib Singh, R/o village Cheema, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.         

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1. Assistant Executinve Engineer, PSPCL Sub Division, Bhalwan, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.
2. XEN, PSPCL, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur, Bagrian Chowk, Dhuri.
3. The Chairman/MD, PSPCL, The Mall, Patiala.

….Opposite parties. 

 

 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          :MEMBER

KANWALJEET SINGH              : MEMBER

 

 

 

For the complainant  : Shri Amrik Singh Dullat Adv.              

For the Ops             : Shri Mohit Verma Adv.

 

 

 

ORDER BY

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

1. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has electric domestic connection bearing account number L87CM130498W and regularly depositing the electricity bills to the Ops and nothing is due against the complainant. The complainant has applied for new electric connection after completing all formalities and depositing requisite fee for installing the new electric connection and Op issued a receipt dated 10.07.2020. After that the Ops employees installed the electric connection in the name of complainant at his residence. In November 2020, the officials of Ops visited the house of complainant and without the consent and in the absence of complainant removed the domestic electric meter from the house of complainant and the above said meter was joint with the connection 362 of Ajaib Singh. After passing some days, the above said Ajaib Singh disconnected the connection of complainant from his meter and in the summer season, complainant and his family members are facing hardship in the summer season due to non supply of electricity. Complainant approached to the Op.1 then he assured that the meter will be installed shortly and directed the complainant to deposit RCO fee of Rs. 140/- for installing new meter and complainant deposited the same. But till today, the Op did not install the meter. Complainant issued a legal notice to Op on 03.06.2021 and requested the Op to restore the electric connection. Neither the Op restore the electric connection nor install new electric meter in the house of the complainant and lastly prayed that the Ops may kindly be directed to restore the electric connection and install a new electric meter in the house of the complainant and also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental torture, agony, inconvenience and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses or any other relief which the Forum think fit in the interest of justice.
2. Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written reply by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not even made the party to Rajinder Singh S/o Teja Singh. On merits, Ops pleaded that earlier complainant was having electricity connection account number L87CM130498W. However, complainant was not depositing his bill. Due to none payment of bills, the electric connection was disconnected vide number 0550380 on 14.10.2020 effective from 05.11.2020 in the presence of complainant. Rajinder Singh have written a letter to the Op number 1 and made objection to the electric connection. Then Op number 1 issued a letter number 872 dated 12.05.2021 to the complainant regarding the said objection and has also called documents regarding proof of land. However, the complainant has not submitted any reply or document. Then again respondent number 1 issued a letter number 1076 dated 15.06.2021 regarding the said objection
3. It is admitted that the complainant has served a legal notice dated 03.06.2021 and Op.1 has given a written reply of the above said legal notice vide letter number 1377 dated 28.07.2021 and mentioned all the facts of objections filed by Rajinder Singh and also sought document regarding proof of land. Lastly Prayed for dismissal of Complaint.
4. In order to prove the complaint the complainant tendered into the evidence Ex.C-1 to C-6 documents and C-7 affidavit and closed the evidence. Similarly, Ops tendered into evidence Ex.Op-1 affidavit and Ex.Op-2 to Op-3 documents and closed the evidence.
5. We had heard the learned counsel of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsel of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition. Now come to major controversy whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer or not?
6. It transpired from the perusal of record that a receipt of RCO Fee Ex.C-1 dated 06.04.2021 was issued by Op in favour of complainant of Rs. 140/-. New DS receipt Ex.C-2 dated 10.07.2020 was issued by Ops of Rs. 1470/- in favour of complainant. Ex. C-3 is bill receipt of Rs. 1500/- dated 04.02.2021 deposited by complainant and Ex.C-4 is another bill receipt dated 07.04.2021 of Rs. 600/- also paid by complainant with the Ops. Ex.C-5 is legal notice issued by complainant on 03.06.2021 to the Ops. This Commission has observed that Ex.Ops.3 which is an application moved by Rajinder Singh S/o Teja Singh Co sharer of Land at village Cheema. He stated in the application is that a court case is pending between Rajinder Singh and from whom he had purchased the house. From the perusal of Ex. Ops.3 this Commission has no hesitation to hold that there is no dispute between complainant and Rajinder Singh. Moreover, Ops neither produced on record any pending civil court proceedings nor any stay order of the civil court. Mere allegations are not sufficient ground for not restoring the domestic connection of the complainant by the officials of the Ops. The burden of proof is on the Ops to prove his defence by way of any cogent evidence. Moreover, the application dated 05.00.2021(Ex.Ops-3) is not supported by an affidavit/Self declaration by Rajinder Singh. This Commission Considered that application moved by Rajinder Singh is vague application. In reply of Ops at para number 3(3) (repeated) It is mentioned that Op has given written reply of legal notice dated 03.06.2021 letter number 1377 dated 28.07.2021, we have examined the entire record on file but no reply of legal notice was produced by Ops. In reply filed by Ops at para number 3(1). It is admitted that earlier the complainant was having an electric connection bearing number L87CM130498W. It is well established principal of law is that admission is the best evidence. Ops admitted this fact that the Ops had installed the electric meter in the house of the complainant but it was disconnected due to non –payment of bills. This commission presumed that the Ops had checked the ownership documents etc. at the time of the installing the first electric connection in the house of the complainant. This Commission has observed that in modern era no one can live without the basic needs of life like as electricity. As per reply on merits Ops taken the plea in para number 3 (3) that complainant had not deposited the bill and due to none payment of bills the electric connection was disconnected on 05.11.2020. This factum was supported by Ex.Ops/2.
7. Per contra from the perusal of record, It transpires that Ex.C-3 and C-4 are receipts of payment paid by complainant of Rs. 1500/- and 600/- with regard to arrear of bill on 04.02.2021 and 07.04.2021 respectively. Ops neither pleaded in the reply nor produced any supportive evidence with regard to any arrear of bills which are outstanding qua the complainant. In view of the above discussion Ops are liable for deficiency in service. This is a fit case to redress the grievances of the complainant
8. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present complaint is partly allowed and the Ops are directed to restore the domestic electric connection bearing number L87CM130498W in the house of complainant. The Ops are further directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses to the complainant.  

8. This order be complied by Ops within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of order.
9. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.  

                                  Announced.      

                                         04 July, 2023

 

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member                  President