| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 209 of 02-05-2012 Decided on : 24-08-2012
Surjit Kaur aged about 65 years Wife of Jeeta Singh R/o Vill. Gill Khurd, Tehsil Phul, 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, Sub Division, Bhucho. ...... 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. Malkiat Singh, A R of opposite party No. 1. Sh. J.D. Nayyar, 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 No. 2575 dated 10-10-2011 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. 268 on 10-10-2011 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 10 BHP tubewell motor for sprinkler to irrigate her land, but the opposite party No. 4 gave a demand notice No. 772 of 12-04-2012 for the payment of Rs. 1,19,083/- and flatly refused to release the connection without deposit of money. The complainant is not bound to make the payment of Rs. 1,19,083/- as the opposite parties are entitled to get Rs. 3,000/- per BHP. The complainant further alleged that she 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 as per rules of Rs. 3,000/- per BHP. 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 complainant should not be harassed. The complainant 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. She is suffering financial loss as she has paid Rs. 32,639/- to the Automate Industries Pvt. Ltd on 18-05-2011 for installation of Sprinkler/drip system in her field on the direction of opposite parties. The complainant explained all the true facts to the opposite parties but they are still adamant and are trying to scuttle the order/scheme of the Punjab Government. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 to release the tubewell connection immediately; opposite parties to give 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 complainant has been issued a certificate on her request vide No. 7785 dated 17-10-2011. 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. 2575 dated 10-10-2011 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. 97,670/- has given subsidy of Rs. 63,909/- and the remaining Rs. 32,639/- being the share of farmer/complainant has been received from her, has been onward deposited with approved firm/dealer M/s. Automate Industries Pvt. Ltd., Patiala. 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 admitted that the said scheme had been introduced by the Punjab Government and as per the scheme, the connections were to be released under priority. It has been pleaded that subsidy if any was to be given by the Punjab Government and that too for the purchase of machinery for the drip system. The electricity connection was to be released on priority (out of turn) but the service connection charges for the same were required to be paid as per the AP policy clause 3.8. According to the said clause, any new connection seeking out of turn release of connection/load/demand will be required to pay her BHP/KW/KVA charges or the actual expenditure incurred in providing the connection/load/demand, whichever is higher. The correct amount as per policy of the opposite parties has been demanded. The opposite party No. 3 & 4 further pleaded that the amount has been demanded as per sanctioned estimate (i.e. the actual cost to be incurred) which comes to Rs. 1,19,083/-. The electricity connection was to be released on priority (out of turn) but the service connection charges for the same were required to be paid as per the AP policy clause 3.8. The complainant never protested and paid the same voluntarily. No subsidy was to be given by opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. 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 her for Sprinkler system whereas she 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. He submitted that when complainant approached opposite party No. 4 for depositing security for release of electric connection of 10 BHP tubwell motor for her sprinkler system, he gave a demand notice No. 772 of 12-04-2012 for for payment of Rs. 1,19,083/-. The complainant is not bound to pay the said amount as the opposite parties are entitled to get Rs. 3,000/- per BHP. On the other hand, the learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 submitted that under the said scheme, the electricity connection was to be released on priority (out of turn) but the service connection charges for the same were required to be paid as per the AP policy clause 3.8. According to the said clause, any new connection seeking out of turn release of connection/load/demand will be required to pay, her BHP/KW/KVA charges or the actual expenditure incurred in providing the connection/load/demand, whichever is higher. The complainant never protested and paid the same voluntarily. A perusal of file reveals that the complainant has got Sprinkler System installed in her 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 vide Ex C-3 & Ex. R-2. A close scrutiny of file reveals that the complainant has 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. 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 not placed any document on file to prove that when she applied for the electric connection in question or he ever deposited any amount with the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 for this purpose. However, the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 have pleaded in their written statement that complainant has voluntarily deposited the amount in question. A perusal of demand notice Ex. C-6 vide which the demand of Rs. 1,19,083/- has been raised by opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 from the complainant, reveals that it has been mentioned in it “.....your A&A Form.... submitted on dated 3-11-2011 has been accepted” Moreover a perusal of Certificates Ex. R-2 & Ex. C-3 issued by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, reveals that these too have been issued on 17-10-2011 and 10-10-2011 respectively 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 Nos. 1 & 2 vide Ex. R-2 & Ex. C-3 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 complainant is directed to deposit the necessary charges, according to Notification dated 24-05-2010 as demanded/will be demanded 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 complainant in writing immediately when she visits them, the amount to be deposited and other documents which are required to be furnished by her for release of aforesaid connection. The complainant is 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 complainant on priority basis i.e. within 15 days after the compliance made by the complainant. 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
| |
