Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/438

PSPCL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jitender Poddar - Opp.Party(s)

Meena Bansal

21 Sep 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

                                     

                   First Appeal No.438 of 2012

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 11.04.2012     

                                                         Date of Decision  : 21.09.2015

 

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Atam Nagar U-1, Ludhiana through Assistant Executive Engineer.

 

                                                                                                                                            …..Appellant/Opposite Party                                 

                                      Versus

 

Jitender Poddar S/o Ram Parkash Poddar r/o Village Phulanwala, Near Bharat Gas Agency, Ludhiana.

 

                                                                                                                                         … Respondent/Complainant

 

First Appeal against order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate

          For the respondent           :         Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint) has directed this appeal against respondent this appeal (the complainant in the complaint),  challenging order dated 17.01.2012 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana, accepting the complaint of the complainant and directing OP to release the connection in dispute to the complainant and quashed the demand of Rs.16,119/- raised by OP. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by opposite party now appellant in this appeal.

2.      The complainant Jitender Poddar has filed  the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs, on the averments that he is account holder of domestic connection no.W31PH284140N at the premises of the complainant and he applied for new non-residential tariff connection for using in its cloth shop namely "Poddar Handloom Emporium" for earning his self-employment exclusively with the help of two persons. The complainant was issued the SCO (Service Connection Order) no.W31/S/10/49385 dated 16.07.2010 for release of new electricity connection and allowed the account no.W31/PH28/4705. The OP has not installed the new meter against the allotted number to the complainant, despite many requests. OP was deficient in service to the complainant because OP was required to issue show cause notice to complainant for not installing new connection. OP has been taking undue excuse of non-tractability of address or wrong address of complainant.  Due to non-releasing of new NRS connection by the OP to complainant, the official in connivance with someone installed the connection at other place against the same service connection order, while interfering with the official record, as well as, intentionally disclosing wrong address of the complainant in the A & A form with the sole motive to gain illegally. OP also penalized the complainant unauthorizedly against domestic connection bearing account no.W31PH28414N for Rs.16119/- on the basis of alleged checking by AEE, which is unauthorized and illegal because the OP has not given any notice to the complainant for depositing the above-said amount. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint  directing the OP to install new connection to the complainant, as referred above, besides payment of Rs.50,000/- as deficiency in service and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

3.      Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by alleging it to be false and frivolous. It was further pleaded that electric connection bearing account no.PH-28/4140 of DS Category was checked by Gurdial Singh AEE Technical Unit No.1 Model Town Division Special PSPC Ltd. Ludhiana, on 26.05.2011, wherein it was mentioned that from domestic connection, complainant was using electricity for shop purposes and both ME seals of the meter was also found tampered with. On the basis of the said checking demand of Rs.16,119/- towards difference of tariff was raised through Provisional Order of Assessment issued on 19.06.2011 by OP. The complainant was directed to file objections within 7 days, if any or to deposit the above penalty, but he failed to do so. Colony of the complainant is unapproved and hence new non-residential connection cannot be issued to him under the latest circular and policy of the OP. On the basis of checking report conducted by Sh. Gurdial Singh AEE Technical, difference of tariff of Rs.16,119/- was charged from complainat. OP also denied the entitlement of the complainant for new non-residential connection. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, the affidavit of complainant Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4. As against it, OP tendered in evidence the affidavit of Dr. Sanjeev Parbhakar Senior Executive Engineer Model Town Division Special PSPC Ltd Ludhiana, Ex.DW-1, affidavit of Gurdial Singh AEE Unit No.1 Model Town Division Special PSPC Ltd Ludhiana Ex.DW-2 along with copies of documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Ludhiana accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing OP to release the connection in question to the complainant and quashed the demand of Rs.16,119/- raised by OP on the basis of memo no.1564 dated 18.07.2011. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum  Ludhiana dated 17.01.2012, the OP now appellant carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case with the able assistance of counsel for the parties.

6.      Firstly, we deal this point as to whether demand of Rs.16,119/- raised by OP from the complainant is legal and justified being authorized. On this point, we have examined the material evidence adduced on the record by the parties. Ex.C-1 is SCO dated 21.07.2010. The photocopy of bill is Ex.C-4 on the record. Op relied upon affidavit of Sanjeev Parbhakar Senior Executive Engineer Model Town Division Special PSPC Ltd Ludhiana Ex.DW-1 on the record. The photocopy of report of checking of electricity connection of the complainant is also placed on the record. We have examined this report dated 26.05.2011. We find that this report is not signed by the complainant or his representative. The alleged checking has been done on the back of the complainant only. Otherwise, it would have been conducted in the presence of the complainant duly signed by the complainant or his representative. The report, if not signed by the complainant or his representative regarding checking of his electricity connection and done at his back would not bind the complainant at all. The District Forum rightly observed that unsigned report by the complainant or his representative signified this fact that it has been made/prepared at the back of the complainant by the OP, which would not be binding on the complainant at all. We concur with the view taken by the District Forum on this point, that unsigned report by the complainant or his representative would not be binding upon him. Even there is no affidavit of person, who checked the connection of the complainant and found the alleged unauthorized running of the electricity therein. Even from the affidavit of Gurdial Singh AEE, it is nowhere proved that this checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant. The fact is clear that checking report is not carried out in the presence of the complainant, otherwise it should have been duly signed by the complainant or his representative and hence this report is inconsequence. We endorse with the view of the District Forum in this regard. We refer to law laid down by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Union Territory Chandigarh in Punjab State Electricity Board Faridkot  versus  Sarwan Singh, reported in 2008(1) CLT Page 237 to this effect that report has also not been authenticated by any representative/person of the locality to confirm its veracity. The report is, thus, held to be against the rules and regulations of the OP and hence could not be relied upon.  We also place reliance upon law laid down by our State Commission in Punjab State Electricity Board and others versus Jagdish Chand and another, reported in 1998(1) CLT Page 378-379 and also refer to law laid down by our State Commission in Punjab State Electricity Board versus Jasbir Singh, reported in III(2003) CPJ 393 Page 393-394 and in Punjab State Electricity Board and another versus  The Hoshiarpur Automobiles, reported in 1998(1) CLT Page 402-403 on this point.

7.      Next point for adjudication before us is, whether complainant is entitled for direction to OP to release connection to the complainant or not? On this point, the argument of the OP/ appellant raised before us is that the premises of the complainant are located in an unapproved colony, in which non-residential connection cannot be installed. The counsel for the appellant relied upon circular no.33/2011. The complete circular has not been produced before us on the record. It only lays down that till the concurrence/approval from the Government of Punjab is received, provisional electric supply connection under normal DS Tariff to the residents of unapproved colonies shall be released, subject to furnishing of an undertaking by the applicant that his electric connection is liable to be disconnected, if the premises is subsequently declared illegal or unauthorized by the State Government or by any appropriate authority. The complete circular has not been produced before us by the appellant, for the reasons best known to it.

8.      On the other hand, submission of counsel for the complainant is that the complainant duly deposited the fee with the OP for getting new connection, vide receipt Ex.C-2 no.198 dated 14.07.2010 of Rs.1560/-. Once OP has accepted the receipt for the release of the new connection, then estimate was required to be prepared by OP. Therefore, if this connection was not legally permissible then OP should have refunded the deposited amount of the complainant with interest. There is no explanation with the OP why they have received new connection fee from the complainant, as referred to above on the record. OP has not served the complainant with any notice about this matter at all. There is no evidence brought before the District Forum on the record that the premises of the complainant do not fall within the premises of the approved colonies by Punjab Government. Evidence on this point is totally lacking on the record of the District Forum, as received in this appeal. Consequently, the District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that officials of the OP visited the site and after preparing the estimate, issued SCO No.W31/S/10/49385 dated 16.07.2010 for installing connection, which was later on cancelled, as per their own whims. The District Forum rightly observed that there is no list of unapproved colonies attached by the OP to substantiate their point of view. Why OP was not issued notice to the complainant to the effect that the sought-after connection could not be released to him in the area being an unapproved colony. The OP remained silent on this point. The order of the District Forum cannot be said to be erroneous. It is clarified that the OP only declined to install the connection without giving an opportunity of being heard to the complainant and to hear him on the point that his colony is not within the approved colonies. The OP cannot do it without giving an effective opportunity of being heard to complainant and that too after issuing notice to him only. Therefore, the order of the District Forum is modified to this extent in this appeal and appeal is disposed of accordingly. The OP can decline the connection to complainant after hearing him on the point as to whether his colony falls within the approved colonies or not.

9.      As a result of our above discussion, the appeal of the appellant stands disposed of, in view of above-referred modifications in the order of District Forum.

10.    The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.8058/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

11.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 17.09.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

12.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                               (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

September 21,  2015.                                                              

(ravi)