| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 218 of 08-05-2012 Decided on : 18-09-2012
Kuldeep Singh aged about 44 years S/o Kulwant Singh R/o Village Multania Tehsil & District Bathinda. .... Complainant 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, Commercial 2, Multania Road, Bathinda. ...... 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. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. Baljeet Singh, A R of opposite party No. 1. Sh. J P 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 complainant 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 complainant 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 complainant as per scheme. The complainant contacted the Agriculture Officer and Land Division Officer for adopting the scheme and as per their instructions, drip system was installed by the complainant in his agricultural land. The opposite party No. 2 checked the drip system and gave certificate 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 to opposite party No. 4 for releasing the connection on priority basis. The complainant alleged that on the recommendations of Chief Agriculture Officer and Divisional Land Officer, complainant 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 and they got deposited Rs. 1350/- from him. Thereafter, the opposite parties refused to release the connection to the complainant on the ground that now new policy has come into force according to which the complainant is not entitled to any subsidy and he has to deposit the amount as per new policy to get the connection. The complainant further alleged that even the connections to one Hardial Singh S/o Bishan Singh and Jarnail Singh S/o Singh were released on the same date when they completed the formalities. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to release the tubewell connection immediately 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 complainant 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 farmer i.e. complainant has installed Drip/Mini Sprinkler System and their office after installation of ISI mark system, has issued certificate vide letter No. 512 dated 21-05-11 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. 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 applied for electricity connection and deposited Rs. 1350/-. The PSPCL is bound by its policies. The complainant has not complied with the demand notice as per policy of PSPCL and as such, the connection in question could not be issued to him. 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 complainant is that the opposite parties are not releasing the motor connection to him for Sprinkler system whereas he has 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 his 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 applied for electric connection and deposited Rs. 1350/- but he has failed to comply with the demand notice issued by them, hence he is not entitled for release of connection. A perusal of file reveals that the complainant has got Sprinkler System installed in his 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 complainant. 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 complainant has applied with opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 for release of connection in question on 20-07-2011 and deposited Rs. 1550/- vide receipt Ex. C-5. Thus, the complainant has applied with the opposite parties for the release of electric connection in question on 20-07-2011 i.e. after the issuance of aforesaid guidelines and as such, he is liable to pay the charges according to aforesaid notification. The complainant has not complied with the demand notice and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not releasing the connection in question to him. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.
Pronounced 18-09-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
