Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/103

Gurdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman MD PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Handa

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    C. C. No :              103 of 2018

Date of Institution :      14.06.2018

Date of Decision :          8.04.2019

Gurdev Singh aged about 61 years s/o Pritam Singh, r/o House No.97, Guru Teg Bahader Nagar, Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

 

1. Chairman / Managing Director, PSPC Ltd. Patiala.
2. Supervising, Chief Engineer, Zone West. PSPCL, Bathinda.
3. Sr Ex. Engineer, PSPCL, Division (City), Faridkot.
4. S D O, Sub Division, (City) Faridkot.                                 

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh  Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Sandeep Handa, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh M S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

cc no.- 103 of 2018

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to shift the electric pole alongwith wires in the street or at safe place and for further directing them to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation for damage to his boundary wall and Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that  in year 2016, OPs shifted electric pole with wires from street to the house of neighbour Tarsem Singh, adjacent to boundary wall of house of complainant which due to non support and heavy winds bent towards the boundary wall of complainant and damaged the same. Electric wires also cross through his house which are quite dangerous for the little granddaughter of complainant as it involves the risk that electric wires may fall at any time. Complainant made several requests to Ops through letters dated 26.06.2017, 17.08.2017, 1.09.2017, 22.12.2017, 8.01.2018 and 26.04.2018 to shift the pole from that place to somewhere else, but instead of redressing the grievance of complainant, Op gave wrong reply asserting that complainant has himself changed the place of electric pole to the centre of wall after cutting switch of transformer without informing Ops and demanded Rs.10,470/-as processing fees for changing the place of electric pole which is duty of OPs to shift it to a safer place. It is further submitted that as per memo no.319 dated 17.05.2018, electric pole in question was shifted on deposit of Rs.5335/-

cc no.- 103 of 2018

by Reetmahinder Singh but on the other hand, Ops have mentioned in their written reply to complainant that pole in question is got shifted by complainant without intimating them and thus, both these things are contradictory. All amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs and has caused great harassment to them. He has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to shift the electric pole and to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                      Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 26.06.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                         On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complainant has filed the present complaint against the employees of Ops and not against Punjab State Power Corporation and therefore, complaint in hand is not maintainable in present form as Corporation has not been impleaded as party in it. It is further averred that matter involved in present complaint is not a consumer dispute and it comes outside the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Complainant has levelled false allegations against them. However, on merits Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has not given any proof regarding construction of house and boundary wall constructed by him. It is admitted by Ops that Reet Mohinder Singh son

cc no.- 103 of 2018

of Sadhu Singh moved application for shifting the pole and also deposited Rs.5335/- as processing fee for this purpose on 4.08.2016 and they shifted the pole on his request, but that pole has no relevancy with the pole which complainant wants to shift. It is further averred that no pole was shifted at the instance of Tarsem Singh. It is also admitted that complainant submitted application for shifting the pole, which was duly replied and complainant was asked to deposit the processing fees for making them feasible to them to shift the pole. It is further averred that complainant constructed the boundary wall beneath the L T Line and he himself switched off the transformer and shifted the L T Pole in between the boundary wall. Complainant has levelled false and frivolous allegations on them and complaint filed by him is liable to be dismissed. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                        Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-20 and closed the same.

6                          In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-13 and then, closed the evidence.

cc no.- 103 of 2018

7                           We have heard the ld counsel for complainant and Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

8                          From the careful perusal of documents and evidence placed on record and after going through the arguments advanced by complainant counsel, it is observed that case of the complainant is that in year 2016, OPs shifted electric pole with wires from street to the house of neighbour  of complainant which is  adjacent to the boundary wall of house of complainant. Due to non support and heavy winds said  pole bent towards the boundary wall of complainant and damaged the same. Electric wires that cross through the house of complainant are very  dangerous as it involves the risk that electric wires may fall at any time. Despite repeated requests by complainant vide letters dated 26.06.2017, 17.08.2017, 1.09.2017, 22.12.2017, 8.01.2018 and 26.04.2018 to shift the pole to somewhere else, Ops did not do anything needful and alleged that complainant himself got changed the place of pole and also demanded Rs.10,470/-as processing fees for changing the place of electric pole. As  per memo no.319 dated 17.05.2018, electric pole in question was shifted on deposit of Rs.5335/- by Reetmahinder Singh but on the other hand, Ops have mentioned in their written reply to complainant that pole in question is got shifted by complainant without intimating them. Complainant has made several requests to Ops to shift the electric place to some other place as it involves risk to the life of his family members, but due to negligence and deficiency in service on the

cc no.- 103 of 2018

part of OPs, complainant has been suffering unnecessary harassment and mental agony. In reply, stand taken by Ops is that complainant switched off the transformer and himself got shifted the said electric pole in between the boundary wall. It is admitted that complainant made requests for shifting the pole and his application was duly replied and he was asked to deposit the requisite processing fee estimate of which was provided to him. It is also admitted that electric pole was shifted on request of one Reet Mahinder Singh on deposit of processing fees of Rs.5,335/-, but that pole has no relevance with the pole which complainant wants to get shifted. It is asserted that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                   Ld Counsel for complainant placed on record documents ExC-2, Ex C-3 and Ex C-5 that are copies of request letters written by complainant to OPs wherein complainant has made humble requests to OPs to shift the electric pole from the main wall of house of complainant to somewhere else. Ex C-6 and Ex C-7 are letters issued by Ops to complainant in reply to his application for shifting the pole, wherein Ops have demanded Rs.10,470/-as processing fees for shifting the pole. Complainant has made several requests to Ops through letters Ex C-8 to Ex C-11 to redress his grievance by shifting the electric pole from main wall of house of complainant. Document Ex C-12 is information furnished by OPs to complainant under Right to Information Act that further proves the pleadings of complainant that said electric pole was

cc no.- 103 of 2018

shifted on request of one Reet Mahinder Singh on deposit of processing fees of Rs.5335/-pm 4.08.2016. Ex C-16 is copy of sketch that is self explanatory and itself shows the position of pole. From it there remains no doubt that electric pole installed by Ops is dangerous to life of complainant and his family members. Moreover, photographs Ex C-17 to Ex C-20 emphasize the fact that pole alongwith its wires is being bent towards the boundary wall of house of complainant and is causing cracks in it. These pictures clearly depict that there is risk of falling the pole on the house of complainant and it may cause electric shock and is risky for life and property. On the contrary, OPs have nothing to say in this regard and they have also failed to prove the complainant has himself shifted the said pole in between his boundary wall of his house. Plea taken by OPs that complainant switched off the transformer and himself shifted the said pole in between his boundary wall has no legs to stand upon as there seems to be no motive or intention of complainant to dislocate the pole erected in street to his boundary wall as no body intends to do these foolish jobs. It is observed that there is great negligence on the part of OPs in erecting the pole alongwith the wall of house of complainant as it may bring some untoward incident. Safety to life and property is the prime duty of department and action of Ops in not shifting the said pole alongwith the wall of house of complainant to somewhere else amounts to deficiency in service and their demand for processing fee is totally unlawful.

 

cc no.- 103 of 2018

10                                                       Therefore, from the above discussion and keeping in view the documents and evidence placed on record by complainant, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not acceding to the genuine requests of complainant and their act of demanding processing fee of Rs.10,470/-for accomplishing their own duty amounts to trade mal practice. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case, therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to shift the electric pole from the main wall of house of complainant to somewhere else where it may not invite any untoward incident and OPs are further directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.10,470/-  which they demanded on account of processing fees. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 8.04.2019                                                                                

(Param Pal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                           Member                           President