BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.266 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 17.10.2016.
Date of Decision: 27.06.2017.
Raj Kumar son of Hari Chand, residence Street No.2, Ward No.17, now 18, Nahar Colony, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
...Complainant
Versus
1. State of Haryana through Collector, Fatehabad.
2. The Managing Director Haryana, Rural Dev. Fund Admn.Board, Plot No.3,
Sector-28/A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
3. Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad,
District Fatehabad.
4. S.D.O. (Sub Urban), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ratia, District
Fatehabad.
...Opposite parties
Complaint U/S 12 of CP Act
Before: Sh.R.S.Panghal, Presiding Member.
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Satpal Sethi, Advocate for OP No.3 and 4.
OP Nos.1 and 2 already ex-parte.
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 electricity connection on 05.08.2014 and as per the instructions of the opposite parties he had deposited the requisite security i.e. 5% of the total estimate of Rs.5805/- vide receipt No.FODC-222/14-15 after completing all the formalities. It is further averred that as per Haryana Govt. declaration and letter of the Nigam for getting electricity connection for a Dhani the consumer has to deposit 5% of the approved estimate, 45% to be borne by the Haryana Rural Development Fund Administration Board or MP fund and remaining 50% shall be borne by the Nigam. It is further submitted that as per above declaration of the Haryana Government MD, HGDFA Board had issued Rs.71.47 lacs for 147 Dhani connection as per their office letter No.HRDF-2013/12045 dated 17.09.2013 in the year 2013. The electricity connection of the complainant along-with 42 other Dhanis is still due. It is further averred that complainant went to the office to the Nigam for many times for getting connection for his Dhani but they demanded 45% of the MP quota to be brought from the Government. It is further averred that complainant had submitted so many letters/reminders to the CM window bearing No.CM Off/O/2015/09179 dated 30.12.2014, dated 03.04.2015, dated 25.06.2015, dated 14.08.2015, dated 09.09.2015, on dated 20.01.2016, dated 08.03.2016 and on 04.04.2016 but despite that nothing has been done by the District Administration/Nigam Officer. It is further submitted that complainant has been trying to get justice for the last two years from the OPs but they did nothing. So there is deficiency on the part of the OPs. Finally the complainant has prayed for releasing the electricity connection for his Dhani and for compensation on account of mental harassment due to non availability of the electricity. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice, opposite party No.3 appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objection denying allegation of the complaint being wrong, against law, baseless and liable to be dismissed; and other legal objections such as complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, barred by limitation; that complainant has not come with clean hands in the forum and has filed the present complaint only to harass and humiliate the Opposite party. On merits it is submitted that as per new Sales Circular No.D-64/2013, the 22.5% of the total amount was to be deposited from the MPLAD Fund and the same was not deposited and 22.5% amount was to be deposited by the State Government under HRDF and other Government Funds but the same has also not been received. Therefore, the connection of complainant has not been released. It is further submitted that the respondents Nigam has written letters in this regard to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Fatehabad, MD Haryana HRDF Chandigarh for release of fund of Rs.51.01 laces. However, no funds have been received so far. The complainant cannot be given the connection until the remaining amount is not deposited as per above said circular. Lastly, OP No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. OPs No.1 and 2 did not turn up despite service. Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte on 09.12.2016. Later-on during the proceedings S.D.O. DHBVN Ratia was also impleaded as OP No.4 by the complainant. The reply filed by OP No.3 to the present complaint was adopted by OP No.4.
5. Both the parties led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.CW1 reiterating therein the averments made in the complaint and documents as Annexure C1 to C16. On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Dheeraj Kumar, SDO as Annexure RW1 and documents as Annexures R2 to R15.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. There is no dispute that complainant has applied for releasing the domestic electricity connection on 05.08.2014 and deposited requisite security amount of Rs.5805/- vide receipt No.FODC-222/14-15 dated 05.08.2014. The same is evident from copy of receipt placed on file as Annexure C1. However, the opposite parties No.3 and 4 have not released the electricity connection to the complainant despite passing of more than two years. The opposite parties have averred that the complainant had deposited 5% i.e. Rs.5805/- of the total estimated amount vide receipt No.FODC-222/14-15 dated 05.08.2014. It has been further submitted that as per Sales Circular No.D-64/2013 of their department, 22.5% amount was to be deposited from MPLD Fund and 22.5% amount was to be deposited by State Govt. HRDF and out of other Govt. funds which were not deposited so that 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. 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 two years and even after filing of the present complaint 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./ 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.
8. 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 No.3 and 4 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 because electricity is not an amenity but is a necessity.
9. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties no.3 and 4 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:27.06.2017
(Ansuya Bishnoi) (R.S.Panghal)
Member, Presiding Member
