| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 185 of 20-04-2012 Decided on : 24-08-2012
Charanjit Singh aged about 30 years Jaskaran Singh aged about 27 years son of Teja Singh R/o Village Chak Heera Singh Wala, Distt. Bathinda
.... Complainants Versus Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda. Department of Soil & Water Conservation, Bathinda, through its Divisional Officer. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman S.D.O./AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Raman Mandi. ...... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. Baldev Singh, A R of opposite party No. 1. Sh. B S Brar, counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. Opposite Party No. 2 exparte.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as ’Act’). In brief, the case of the complainants is that the Punjab Government started a new scheme named Drip/Sprinkler with the help of Central Government to save the water and 75% subsidy was given to the farmers who would like to adopt the said scheme and connections of drip system are released on priority basis superseding all other schemes. The advertisement in this regard was got published in the news paper by Punjab Government including the opposite parties. Special type of training was also given to the complainants as per scheme. The complainants contacted the Agriculture Officer and Land Division Officer for adopting the scheme and as per their instructions, drip system was installed by the complainants in their agricultural land. The opposite party No. 2 checked the drip system and gave certificate No. 2177 dated 30-08-2011 regarding installation of ISI drip system and recommended immediate release of connection to the complainant. Thereafter Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda, also gave a certificate for release of the drip connection immediately on priority basis. The SDO, Department of Soil & Water Conservation also wrote a letter No. 451 on 30-08-2011 to opposite party No. 4 for releasing the connection on priority basis. The complainants alleged that on the recommendations of Chief Agriculture Officer and Divisional Land Officer, complainants approached opposite party No. 4 for depositing the security for the purpose of getting electric connection of 7.5 BHP tubewell motor for sprinkler to irrigate his land, but he flatly refused to accept the security to release the connection without any reason. The complainants further alleged that he has fulfilled all the conditions as required by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and they were duty bound to direct opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 to release the connection after getting the charges. Moreover, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are duty bound to get the connection released from the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. If there is any mis-understanding between the opposite parties, the complainants should not be harassed. The complainants met the officials of the opposite parties many times with Panchayat and even filed declaration letter to opposite party No. 4 as well as other co-shares also gave declaration letter in favour of the complainant as required by opposite party Nos. 3 & 4, but they are not getting the payment for releasing the electric connection on priority basis as per rules of Power Com. Hence, the complainants have filed the present complaint seeking directions to opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 to release the tubewell connection immediately; opposite parties be directed to give the subsidy and benefits provided by the Punjab Government and Centre Government for drip system and pay compensation and cost. The opposite parties filed their separate written statements. The opposite party No. 1 in its written statement has pleaded that the new scheme named Drip/Sprinkler micro irrigation scheme not relates to the Department of Agriculture (opposite party No. 1). The agricultural Department only issue the certificate to the farmers that this sprinkler system is being used on the crops other than Horticulture crops. After receiving this certificate farmer apply for the Electric Tubewell connection to the Punjab Power Corporation. This certificate is being given to those farmers who applied to Agriculture department and after physical verification, a certificate is issued to the concerned farmers. The opposite party No. 1 has further pleaded that as per record of their office, the complainants never approached nor applied for this certificate. The opposite party No. 2 in its separate written statement admitted that Punjab Government started a new scheme named Drip/Sprinkler with the help of Central Government to save the water and 75% subsidy was given to the farmers who would like to adopt the said scheme and connections of drip system are released on priority basis. The farmers i.e. complainants have installed Drip/Mini Sprinkler System and their office after installation of ISI mark system, has issued certificate vide letter No. 2177 dated 30-08-11 for release of motor connection on priority basis. The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that their department, after installation of Mini Sprinkler system and after giving 75% subsidy has given certificate for release of connection on priority basis. The motor connection is to be released by opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. The department according to total expenses i.e. Rs. 97,120/- has given subsidy of Rs. 63,421/- and the remaining Rs. 30,000/- being the share of farmers/complainants has been received from them has been onward deposited with approved firm/dealer M/s. Aggarwal Irrigations, Gillpatti Road, Bathinda. It has been pleaded that opposite party Nos. 2, according to instructions of government, after installation of system and providing subsidy, has issued the certificate for release of motor connection on priority basis. The opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has not applied for electricity connection so far much less completion of formalities for the same as per Electricity Act, rules as well as Sales Manual Instructions of PSPCL. He has not deposited the requisite security, application fee and the charges. When the complainant will apply for electricity connection and complete formalities, then he shall be released the connection on merit basis as per policy of PSPCL. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainants is that the opposite parties are not releasing the motor connection to them for Sprinkler system whereas they have completed all the formalities. The required certificates issued by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have also been furnished but the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 despite their repeated requests refused to accept the payment for releasing connection. On the other hand, the learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 submitted that the complainant has neither applied nor deposited the security for release of connection. The opposite parties are ready to release the connection if they comply with the necessary formalities. A perusal of file reveals that the complainants have got Sprinkler System installed in their agricultural land and opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 after inspection have found that the system has been installed as per specifications and is running correct and thereafter they recommended release of electric connection on priority basis to the complainants. A close scrutiny of file reveals that the complainants have not placed any document on file to the effect that opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are duty bound to direct the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 to release the connection. The complainants have also not placed any document on file to prove that they ever applied or deposited any amount with opposite party No. 3 & 4 for release of electric connection for Sprinkler system. According to the notification dated 24-05-2010, an applicant for new connection seeking out of turn, release of connection/load/demand will pay actual cost of release of connection or PSERC prescribed as per BHP/KW/KVA service connection Charges, whichever is higher. The guidelines in this regard were issued by Special Secretary, Power and forwarded to The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala vide memo No. 1/33/08. EBCPR1/55 dated 14th February, 2011, for implementation. Clause 3.8 of AP Policy – Guidelines for release of Agricultural Pump-set Connections in the State of Punjab, is reproduced hereunder :- “ 3.8 Service Connection Charges for Release of Tubewell Connections The Service Connection Charges are recoverable from the applicants seeking a new Tubewell connection or extension in load/demand under AP category as prescribed by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission in the Electricity Supply Code. As per amendment made by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide its Notification dated 24.5.2010, an applicant for new connection seeking out of turn release of Connection/Load/Demand will be required to pay per BHP/KW/KVA charges or the actual expenditure incurred in providing the Connection/Load/Demand whichever is higher. Accordingly Service Connection Charges for release of new Connection or extension in load/demand under AP category will be recovered as under :- (i) Service Connection Charges @ Rs.3,600/- per BHP (upto service line of 500 Mtr. ) from General Category Consumers.
(ii) Applicants for new connection seeking out of turn release of connection/load/demand will pay actual cost of release of connection or PSERC prescribed per BHP/KW/KVA Service Connection Charges whichever is higher.”
As discussed above, the guidelines regarding notification dated 24-05-2010 were conveyed to the Chairman/MD vide letter dated 14-02-2011 for implementation. Hence, in such circumstances, the applicants who have applied for motor connection for Sprinkler System under priority basis with PSPCL after 14-02-2011 are liable to deposit the charges according to aforesaid guidelines. Now in the instant case, the complainants have not applied with opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 for release of connection in question till date. Moreover a perusal of Certificates Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-4 issued by opposite party No 2, reveals that these too have been issued on 30-08-2011 i.e. after the issuance of aforesaid guidelines.
Hence, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and record placed on file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 are bound to release the connection to the complainant on priority basis as recommended by opposite party No. 2 vide Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-4 but after deposit of necessary charges according to Notification dated 24-05-2010 which was implemented on 14-02-2011. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 500/- as cost against opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. The complainants are directed to apply for electric connection for Sprinkler System and deposit necessary charges according to Notification dated 24-05-2010 and other documents as required by opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 for release of connection in question. The opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 are directed to intimate the complainants in writing immediately when they visit them , the amount to be deposited and other documents which are required to be furnished by them for release of aforesaid connection. The complainants are directed to complete all the formalities within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 are further directed to release the electric connection for Sprinkler System to the complainants on priority basis i.e. within 15 days after the compliance made by the complainants. The complete compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in all circumstances. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.
Pronounced 24-08-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member | |
