BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

Complaint Case No.105 of 2015.

Date of Instt.:  02.07.2015.

Date of Decision:  04.08.2016.

Harbans Singh son of Labh Singh, resident of village Bhirdana, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

...Complainant

                     Versus

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN, Fatehabad District Fatehabad.

2. Sub Divisional Officer, Operation, Sub-Division, Sub Urban,   Dakshin Haryana Bijli  Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                                                   ..Opposite parties

                   Complaint U/S 12 of CP Act

Before:       Sh. Raghbir Singh, President

                   Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present:       Sh.Sant Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh.M.L.Garg, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER

                    The complainant has brought the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, called, the Act).  

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had applied for releasing of domestic electric connection on 15.3.2013 and as per the instruction of the opposite parties had deposited the requisite security of Rs.1010/- vide receipt No.16/15.3.2015 (It should be 15.3.2013 as is evident from receipt in this regard) vide application No.42415 and also fulfilled all the formalities. It is further averred that the opposite party had sent demand notice to the complainant and consequently the complainant deposited the test report and other relevant documents such as agreement and bills of material purchased by the complainant as directed by the ops. He also deposited the cost of pole and other material worth Rs.16,900/- vide receipt No.24 dated 25.3.2013 as per direction of ops. It is further averred that due to not releasing of electric connection, the complainant is facing very hardship and his children are unable to continue their study and his old aged parents are also suffering from mental and physical agony because now a days it is not possible for any person to survive without the electric connection. The complainant is being discriminated by the opposite parties because the consumer who applied after the complainant have got the electric connection. The opposite parties have been repeatedly asked to release the domestic electric connection to the complainant but all in vain as they have flatly refused to release the connection to the complainant. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and as such he is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the ops on account of mental agony and harassment and also release of electric connection. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; suppression of material facts; cause of action and locus standi. It has been submitted that true facts are that complainant had deposited security of Rs.1010/- with the opposite parties for release of domestic electric connection and also furnished his affidavit to the effect that he will abide by the new conditions of the department and that he wants to take connection from the line of 24 hours with the scheme of 5%. The complainant had deposited 5% i.e. Rs.16,900/- of the total estimate amount of Rs.3,30,600/- vide receipt No.24 dated 25.3.2015. It has been further submitted that as per circular No.D-64/2013 of their department, 22.5% amount was to be deposited from MPLD Fund which was not deposited and 22.5% amount was to be deposited by State Govt. HRDF and out of other Govt. funds which was also not deposited. The complainant cannot be given the connection till the remaining amount is not deposited as per above said circular. On merits, the contents of the complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 4.                The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex.CW1/A and documents as Annexures C1 and C2. On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Dalbir Singh, SDO as Ex.RW1/A and documents as Annexures R1 to R5.

     5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                There is no dispute that complainant has applied for releasing the domestic electric connection on 15.3.2013 and deposited requisite security amount of Rs.1010/- vide receipt No.16 dated 15.3.2013 as is evident from copy of receipt placed on file as Annexure C2. According to the complainant, after completion of all the formalities, the opposite parties sent demand notice to the complainant and consequently complainant has deposited the test report and other relevant documents such as agreement and bills of material purchased by the complainant as directed by the opposite parties. He has further pleaded that he has also deposited an amount of Rs.16,900/- as cost of pole and other material vide receipt No.24 dated 25.3.2013 as directed and instructed by the opposite parties, the copy of which has been placed on file by the complainant as Annexure C1. Here we would like to clear one thing that inadvertently complainant  in his pleadings and affidavit has pleaded the fact that he deposited the above said amount of Rs.16900/- on 25.3.2015 and similarly the opposite parties have also averred that complainant had deposited the said amount on 25.3.2015 but the receipt Annexure C1 in this regard makes it clear that the said amount was actually deposited on 25.3.2013. However, the opposite parties have not released the electricity connection to the complainant despite passing of more than three years. The opposite parties have averred that the complainant had deposited 5% i.e. Rs.16,900/- of the total estimate amount of Rs.3,30,600/- vide receipt No.24 dated 25.3.2013. It has been further submitted that as per circular No.D-64/2013 of their department, 22.5% amount was to be deposited from MPLD Fund which was not deposited and 22.5% amount was to be deposited by State Govt. HRDF and out of other Govt. funds which was also not deposited and the complainant cannot be given the connection till the remaining amount is not deposited as per above said circular. However, we see no substance in the contentions of the opposite parties because the above said circular No.D-64/2013 is of dated 14.11.2013 whereas the complainant has deposited the security amount of Rs.1010/- on dated 15.3.2013 and then deposited another amount of Rs.16900/- on 25.3.2013 for release of electricity connection i.e. much prior to issuance of the above said sale circular but the opposite parties have failed to release the connection to the complainant so far. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 casts duty upon the Nigam to supply the electricity and for the ready reference the said section is reproduced as under:-

“43 Duty to supply on request.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply:

Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission:

Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.

(2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1):

Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission.

(3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period prescribed in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default.

                   The above said provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 makes it clear that opposite parties were required to release the electricity connection to the complainant within one month after receipt of the application or within specific period as specified by the opposite parties but the opposite parties have failed to release the connection after such a delay of more than three years and even after filing of the present complaint despite depositing of amount of Rs.16900/-  as cost of pole and other material by the complainant as per proviso of sub Section 2 of Section 43 of the Act. The opposite parties have not specified the period for releasing the connection to the complainant. The opposite parties cannot contend that they did not receive the funds from MPLAD Fund and from State Govt. from HRDF. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. Versus Zora Singh & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos.4910-4981 of 2005 decided on 11.8.2005 has held that “It is also idle to contend that the Board was cash-starved owing to any faulty decision on the part of the State. If it suffered losses owing to any direction issued by the State pursuant to any policy decision adopted by it, the same being an internal matter between the State and the Board, the prospective consumers cannot suffer therefore.” It was also held in the above referred judgment that “Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 79(1)- Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Sections 22 and 24- Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (g)- Electricity Board getting security deposits for supply of electrical energy without having made itself ready to supply electrical energy- Board failed to supply the electricity as per period stipulated in their regulations- Board unjustly enriched itself with the money deposited by applicants- It is deficiency of service- Board directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% and compensation of Rs.5000/-.”

                   Similarly, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Amanpreet Singh Vs. Chairman Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2014(2) Civil Court Cases 212 has held as under:-

“ Electricity Act, 2003, Ss.42,43- Release of electric connection- Ss.42,43 of the Act cast duty on ‘distribution licensee’ to provide supply of electricity to consumer within a period of one month after receipt of application requiring supply of electricity- Provisions are mandatory in nature.” In that case there was inordinate delay and respondents No.1 to 3 failed to explain inordinate delay in releasing electric connection in favour of petitioner. So the respondents No.1 to 3 were directed to compensate petitioner by paying an amount of Rs.50,000/- as costs with interest @9% per annum from the date of receipt of test report till the date of actual payment.

7.                As per law laid down in above mentioned judgments,  opposite parties were bound to release the connection within stipulated period of one month but opposite parties have not only failed to release the connection but made excuse that connection cannot be released due to insufficiency of funds and this excuse of the opposite parties, is not sustainable. In spite of completion of all requisite formalities, opposite parties have not released the connection which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on their part as the electricity is not an amenity but is a necessity.  Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to release the connection as per instruction/scheme applicable at the time of submitting the application and further to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand). This order should be complied within 45 days failing which opposite parties will also pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:4.8.2016

                                                                   (Raghbir Singh)

                                                                   President,

(Ansuya Bishnoi)                                 Distt.Consumer Disputes

      Member,                                                 Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.