DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA Building No. b-XVII-23, 1st Floor, fatch Bazar, Opp. Old Hospital, Amritsar Road, Kapurthala consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/49
Gulam Hussain
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Chairman SDO,PSEB Sr.Executiv e Engineer.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. A.K.SHARMA 2. SUDHA SHARMA 3. SUSHMA HANDOO
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended upo date has been filed by complainant Gulam Hussain against opposite parties i.e. PSEB through its Chairman and other functionaries seeking direction against them to reconnect the electric connection in his house and to provide regular supply of electricity and further to pay monetary compensation for on account of mental agony and harassment. In nutshell the facts of the complaint are that complainant is resident of village Mallu Kadrabad Tehsil and District Kapurthala and had taken a land on lease from Punjab Wakf Board in village Mallu Kadrabad Tehsil and District Kapurthala and had constructed his residential house alongwith one Haveli in one compound.. He approached opposite party No.2 to get installed an electric connection in his residential house to take benefit of electricity and also submitted his form to the opposite party. He was directed by the opposite party to deposit security of Rs. 1350/- after visiting the premises of the complainant. Accordingly he deposited the security amount vide receipt dated 21/10/2005.The officials of the opposite party Board prepared the estimate for providing the electric connection and directed the complainant for depositing Rs. 7125/- as expenses for installation of electric connection vide receipt dated 28/7/2006 and opposite party allotted the electric connection bearing A/c No.53/696. It is alleged that he visited office of opposite party many a times for installation of of electric connection.supply connection was given to him after installing three electric poles and started the connection on 2.4.2007 by the opposite party Board. However, the opposite party demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5000/- which he was not in position to pay as a result of which opposite party No.2 removed the electric connection from his house and uplifted three electric poles despite his entities made to them not to do so.. The illegal act of opposite parties caused him immense loss and also amounts to deficiency in service on their part for which he is not only entitled to reconnect electric connection and to provide electric supply regularly but also to monetary compensation. Opposite parties appeared and controverted allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. Preliminary objections have been raised that electric connection has not been released to complainant so he is not a consumer of opposite parties and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits this fact is admitted that complainant had applied for electric connection and deposited amount of security and opposite party No.2 issued SCO No.148/37908 dated 1/10/2005 to install electric connection and before issuing the said SCO, account No.53/696 was also allotted to him but the said SCO had not been effected and electric connection had not been released to him. It is denied that said electric connection was ever released to the complainant, so the question of illegal and forcible removal of electric connection does not arise. In fact complainant applied for domestic electric connection on 21/10/2005 and he submitted a pattanama for the year 2004-05 of 4 Kanal of land out of Khasra No.74 which is owned by Punjab Wakf Board. On fulfilling all the formalities, office of opposite party No.2 allotted account No.53/696 to complainant and issued Service connection order No. 148/37908 dated 21/10/2005 to release the electric connection but before releasing the said electric connection one Jaswinder Kumar son of Gujjar Ram resident of village Mallu Kadrabad filed an application to the Punjab Wakf Board Kapurthala and stated that he is the lessee of Punjab Wakf Board Kapurthala and no electric connection for tube well or domestic may be sanctioned to any other person except Jaswinder Kumar.It is alleged that Gram Panchayat of village Mallu Kadrabad had also given application to the Deputy Commissioner Kapurthala in which it was mentioned that Gulam Hussain complainant was in illegal possession of land of village Panchayat which is reserved for disposing of dead animals and said Gulam Hussain was appluying for electric connection which may not be sanctioned. The photocopy of the said application was also given in the office of opposite party No.2. It is further pleaded that one Jail Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Kuldip Singh had also filed application in the office of opposite party No.2 in which it was stated that Gulam Hussain complainant is not the owner of the premises in which he had applied for release of electric connection. On receipt of applications from village Gram Panchayat Mallu Kadrabad and said persons, a memo No.1736m dated 1/9/2006 was sent to the complainant by registered post vide which he was asked to submit documentary proof of ownership of the premises in which he wanted to take the electric connection. Then again memo No.1884 dated 28.9.2006 was sent to the complainnt vide which he was asked to submit documentary proof of ownership of the premises and no objection certificate from Gram Panchayat but the complainant failed to do so So the electric connection could not be released to the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. in support of his version complainant Gulam Hussain has tendered in evidence Indemnity Bond Ex.C1, affidavit of complainant Ex.C2, certificate of Panchayat Ex.C3, Kabooliyatnama Ex.C4, and other documents Ex.C5 to C20 and affidavit of Mohan Lal Ex.C21 and affidavit of Laskhar Singh Ex.C22. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex.R1 to R11. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended before us that act of the opposite party No.2 in illegal disconnection of his electric connection in the house after its due sanction and fulfilling formalities by him amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for which he is not only entitled to reconnection of his electric connection in his house to provide regular supply of electricity but also monetary compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment. On the other hand it has been counterargued by learned counsel for the opposite parties that complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party Board because no electric connection has been released to him and as such there was no question of any reconnection of electric connection and alleged deficiency in service on its part. We have considered rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. We find considerable merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant. The analysis of the pleadings of the parties highlight certain admitted facts that complainant submitted application form dated 21/10/2005 Ex.R10 to the opposite party No.2 for providing electric connection to his house on deposit of Rs.50/- and further deposited security amount of Rs. 1350/- vide receipt dated 21/10/2005. The officials of the opposite party Noard also prepared the estimate for providing electric connection and directed the complainant for deposit of Rs.7125/- as expenses for installation of electric connection vide receipt dated 28/7/2006 and that he was allotted electric connection bearing A/ No.53/696. These facts are admitted in para 4 of the written statement by the opposite parties that in pursuance of allotment of electric connection bearing A/c No.53/696 to the complainant, service connection order No.148/37908 dated 21/10/2005 was also issued to release electric connection to the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that officials of the Board demanded illegal gratification after issuance of domestic supply electric connection and installing three electric poles on 2/4/2007 which could not be paid by him and later on his electric meter was removed and three poles for supply of electricity were also removed. On the other hand defence plea of the opposite party Board is that electric connection could not be issued on account of objection raised by one Jaswinder Kumar on application to the Punjab Wakf Board asserting that he is leasee of Punjab Wakf Board land and that electric connection be not issued to the complainant. Even the Estate Officer of Punjab Wakf Board had written to the opposite party Board on the said application that no electric connection for tubeweel or domestic use may be sanctioned to anyone except Sh.Jaswinder Kumar. Even Gram Panchayat of village Mallu Kadrabad had also raised objection for issuance of electric connection on the plea that Gulam Hussain complaina tis in illegal possession of land bearing Khasra No.74. One Jai Singh nd Kuldeep Singh had also questioned the ownership rights of premises of complainant in which he applied for release of electric connection. Consequently letters vide memo No1736 dated 1/9/2006 Ex.R4 and. memo No.1884 dated 28/9/2006 Ex.R2 were sent to the complainant to substantiate his rights of ownership over the premises sought to be connected with electricity connection. The affidavits of Ranjit Singh Sarpanch Ex.R3 and that of Jaswinder Kumar Ex.R6 and another application of Gram Panchayat Ex.R8 had been filed. Ther is also civil litigation between the complainant and Jaswinder Kumar etc. in which complainant had sought relief of permanent injunction from taking forcible possession of land bearing Khasra No.74 min/4K-13M situated in village Mallu Kadrabad and that status quo order regarding possession over the suit property was also passed by the appellate Court vide order dated 16/4/2007. It is evident from Jamabandi Ex.C8 for the year 2003-04 that land bearing Khasra No.74 min/4K-13M was owned by Punjab Wakf Board and that Qabuliyat Nama Ex.C4 was also executed by the complainant in favour of the Wakf Board in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.74 min/ 5K-13M for the year 2004-05 and Patta Order Ex.C5 in favour of the complainant was also issued by Chief Executive Officer of Punjab Wakf Board in respect of this land. The receipt Ex.C6 dated 28/5/2005 of the lease money and other receipt dated 14/6/2006 Ex.C7 aand other receipts Ex.C13 and C14 were also issued by Rent Controller Wakf Board to him. There is also certificate of Sarpanch and others dated 26/8/2006 Ex.C3 is about possession of land owned by Wakf Board for the last 23-24 years. Complainnt has also proved vide indemnity bond Ex.C1 dated 21/7/2006 and affidavit Ex.C2 supported by others and also deposit of requisite security service connection charges and meter security and test report and allotment of electric connection bearing A/c No. 53/696 and that service connection order was also issued as required under Sales Regulation No.29.1 which clearly envisages that the test report submitted by the consumer has been found to be in order, AE/AEE/XEN/(OPs.) will issue a service connection order in ( EB form -CS-12),a reference to the service connection order (No. & Date ) being entered at the bottom of the BOard's installation Test Order. It is further clear from the document Ex.C15 about deposit of Rs.7125/- by the complainant before issuance of electric connection . From the analysis of numerous documents produced by the complainant, opposite party Board cannot abdicate its function in disconnecting the electric connection released by it and to that effect complainant has articulated his grievance vide his complaint Ex.C16 dated 10/4/2007 and also Ex.C10 duly supported by affidavits of Mohan Lal Ex.C21 and affidavit of Lashkar Singh Ex.C22. There is no legal justification in the stand of opposite party in disallowing the reconnection and for regular supply of electricity to the complainant merely on the basis of objections raised by Gram Panchayat or by rival claiment Jaswinder Kumar in the civil litigation in respect of the disputed land in which SCO was released. Moreso; complainant has claimed his possession over the parcel of land bearing Khasra No.74 min/4K-13M as a leasee of Wakf Board. It is well settled principle of law as laid down by our own Hon'ble State Commission in case reported as PSEB vs. Rattan Chand 2003 (3) CLT 92 in which it was held that : When in pursuance of the demand noticetest report has been furnished then the electric connection should not be denied to the consumer and the failure to prove the ownership right of the land or no objection certificate from the owner of the land by the complainant when he was proved to be lawful occupier of the premises as proved by Fard Jamabandi can obtain connection without permission from the owner of the premises. Reliance is also rightly placed by learned counsel for the complainant on another case reported as 1999 (3) Civil Court Cases 380 ( Calcutta High Court ) wherein it was held that tenent deposited the money and complied with other ormalities for supply of electric connection. Supply of electricity is matter between occupier and licensee under the Electricity Act abnd landlord as owner cannot stand in the way. Consent of owner not required. In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we are of the considered opinion that act of the opposite parties in disconnecting the electricity connection and to obstruct regular supply of electricity to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service for which complainant is entitled to reconnection of his electric connection and opposite parties are directed to provide regular supply of electricity with further direction to pay Rs.3000/- as monetary compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.500/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. The above orders be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order. Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to the record room. Announced : ( Sushma Handoo ) ( Sudha Sharma) ( A.K.Sharma) 19.9.2007 Member Member President.
