Punjab

StateCommission

FA/605/2013

Punjab State Power Corporation and others. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kehar Singh and others - Opp.Party(s)

Meena Bansal

12 Jan 2015

ORDER

FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No. 605 of 2013                                                           

                                                        Date of Institution  :  29.05.2013

                                                        Date of decision    :   12.01.2015

 

1.    Punjab State Power Corporation through its Chief Managing            Director-cum-Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2.    Add. S.E./OP City Div., PSPCL, Hoshiarpur.

3.    AEE/OP Hariana Sub Div., PSPCL, Hariana.

                                              ...Appellants/Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

1.    Kehar Singh, son of Bishan Singh (deceased)

2.    Jasbir Singh son of Gurmail Singh.

3.    Sheetal singh and Sukhdev Singh son of Late Samitter Singh,                village Kang Mai, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

4.    Harminder Singh son of Satnam Singh.

       All residents of village Kang Mai, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur.

5.    Kulbhushan Chander son of Om Parkash.

6.    Charanjit Singh son of Gurdeep Singh S/o Hari Singh through                   his attorney Sh. Hardeep Singh, resident of village Nikkiwal,                 Tehsil and Distt. Hoshiarpur.                                                                                                                       …..Respondents/Complainants

 

     First Appeal against the order dated 15.04.2013 passed by District          Consumer          Disputes Redressal     Forum, Hoshiarpur.

Quorum:-

        

         Shri Baldev singh Sekhon, Presiding Member

                 Shri. H. S. Guram, Member

Present:-

 

       For the appellants       :         Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate

       For the respondents    :         Mr. Kartik Gupta

 

Shri Baldev singh Sekhon, Member

             This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 15.04.2013 passed by District Consumter Disputes Redressed Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short "the Distt. Forum")vide which the complaint filed by respondents/complainants against and the opposite parties were directed not to shift the tube-well connections of all the complainants from Kotli Kandi feeder to Noorpur or Nikkiwal non-kandi feeders. They were further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/-, to each of the complainants for unnecessary harassment and mental agony including the litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order failing which they were held liable to pay the interest @ 9%per annum on the total amount of  Rs. 30,000/-, from the date of order till realization.

1.          Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainants are residents of village Kang Mai and Nikkiwal and they were enjoying 24 hours electricity supply from Kotli Kandi area feeder against their tube-well connections released by opposite parties in their respective names. It was pleaded that the connections were released to them as per technical feasibility and being the shortest route and they were using their connections without any interruption. It was further pleaded that opposite parties started collecting material planning to change supply to their connections from the Kandi area feeder to Noorpur and Nikkiwal non-Kandi area feeder. They were never informed about the proposed shifting of their said connections and had opposite parties have no right to do so. In case their connections are shifted, then their agricultural work would be adversely affected. Alleging deficiency in service, they filed complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the opposite parties not to shift their connections from Kandi feeder to non-Kandi feeder and to further, pay them Rs. 50,000/-, on account of harassment, mental tension and agony besides, Rs. 20,000/-, as litigation expenses.

2.          Upon notice, opposite parties filed joint written reply pleading their in that all the complainants fell in the non-Kandi area but, they were getting supply from the transformer of the Kandi area feeder. It was further, pleaded that none of the complaniants was entitled to 24 hour supply. In fact all the complainants were using the electricity supply by suppressing the true facts from the opposite parties. In fact during an inquiry held by the higher authorities it transpired that there were certain, consumers including the present complainants, who were wrongly getting supply from the Kandi feeder.

3.          Accordingly, it was ordered by Director/D to shift all the connections, including those of the complainants, to non-Kandi feeder as they were getting supply against the rules. In fact, they are entitled to get supply only from non-Kandi feeder as their land where tube-wells situated in the non-Kandi area. It was denied that the connections to the complainants were released as per technical feasibility and being the shortest route. In fact the connections were released to them from the transformer by considering them as unit. It was further, pleaded that a complaint was filed by one Sh. Subhash Rangarha to the Chief Minister, Punjab, and C.M.D. of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (in short "Corporation") against the 17 AP connections, including the present complainants, who were wrongly getting supply from the Kandi feeder. The complaint was investigated as per the order of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of corporation by Senior Executive Engineer/enforcement, Hoshiarpur who verified the record well as the factual position at the spot.

4.          During the inquiry it was found that all those 17 tube-well connections, including the complainants, were wrongly running on the Kandi feeder which is only meant for tube-wells located in the Kandi area. Accordingly it was ordered by the Director/D of Corporation that all these motors be shifted to non-Kandi area feeder within one month. Accordingly, opposite parties prepared an estimate at their own expenses for shifting all their connections from Kandi area feeder to Noorpur feeder and Nikkiwal non-Kandi feeders. All their complainants were getting supply from, Kotli, Kandi feeder and out of them connections of the complainants No. 1 to 4, were proposed to be shifted to Noorpur, non-kandi feeder whereas those of complainants No. 5 and 6 were proposed to be shifted to Nikkiwal, non-Kandi feeder which were the nearest non-Kandi feeder for them. The shifting of the connections was to be done as per the entitlement of the complainants.

5.          It was further, pleaded that work was started in pursuance of the order dated 27.9.2011 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation. All the expenditure for the proposed is to be born by the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that material has been collected for the same which was lying in the office of the Corporation whereas, poles were lying at the site. Complainants have got every knowledge about the proposed shifting of their connections. Even otherwise, no loss or injury is being caused to them. Denying other allegations, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

6.          Parties evidence led by way of their affidavits and documents which, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, allowed the complaint in aforesaid terms.

7.          Aggrieved by this order the appellants/opposite parties have come up in appeal on the grounds that policy matter was involved in this case. As per the policy instructions, electricity supply was to be given category wise depending upon the location of the land on which tube-well connections of the consumers were installed, i.e., those located in the Kandi area were to be given supply from the Kandi feeder whereas, tube-wells located in the non-Kandi area were to be given supply from the non-kandi feeder. The whole action of the opposite party is based on an inquiry which was conducted by Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement) during which, it transpired that some consumers, including the complainants, who were not entitled to get supply from the Kandi feeder, were getting supply from the Kandi feeder. The facts were verified from the record as well as from the verification of the site by the Inquiry Officer and all the complainants were found having their land situated in the non-Kandi area. Hence, they were not at all eligible to get the supply from Kandi feeder. But they were getting the supply from the Kandi area feeder  because the transformers, from which the supply was being given to them, were located in the Kandi area from which the supply was also be given to eligible Kandi area feeder consumers. It was also submitted that the whole process of shifting the tube-well connections to the appropriate feeder is being done at the cost of the opposite parties and no amount is being recovered from the complainants. Acceptance of the amount and set aside of the impugned order was prayed. We have thoroughly gone through the grounds of appeal and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8.          The undisputed facts of the case are that the land where, the tube-well connections of the complainants are located, fall under non-Kandi area, whereas, they were getting supply from Kotli, Kandi area feeder because the transformers, feeding their tube-wells, were located in the Kandi area. The specific case of the opposite parties is that the Kandi area feeder is meant for giving supply to only those consumers whose land/tube-well fell under the Kandi area. Thus, the complainants were not entitled to receive the supply from Kotli, Kandi feeder. It is further the case of opposite party that upon receipt of a complaint against this illegal supply of electricity as per Kandi area to ineligible consumers, the matter was got investigated by Chairman-cum-Managing Director of OPs from Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement) whose report dated 14.09.2012 is proved on record with Ex.R-3. Perusal of this report shows that 17 number tube-wells, including those of complainants, which were actually located in non-Kandi area, were connected to Kotli, Kandi area feeder because Transformers, feeding these tube-wells, were located in Kandi area. These tube-wells were getting this facility because these could not be segrigated from those falling in Kandi area. This report was put up to Director/D of the Corporation who ordered that "SE/Ds, Hoshiarpur, to shift these tube-wells on non-Kandi area feeder with in one month". These directions were conveyed to SE/DS, Hoshiarpur for implementing the same by Chief Engineer (North) vide letter dated 19.10.2012.

9.          It is not the case of the complainants that their land fell in the Kandi area and therefore, they were entitled to get supply from the Kotli, Kandi area feeder.Their only plea is that since they are already getting supply from a Kandi feeder, the same should not be shifted to any other feeder against their whishes. The opposite parties are duty bound to give supply to their consumers under a uniform policy and they are not expected to extend a facility available to a particular category of consumers to those who are not entitled for the same. Sometimes, it is difficult to segregate the eligible and non-eligible consumers while implementing a policy.  In this in the present case, a specific complaint was received by the opposite party upon which such, ineligible consumers, including the complainants, were identified and thereafter an estimate was prepared at cost of the opposite parties for shifting the ineligible tube-wells to non-Kandi feeders.

 10.       Opposite parties were thus, within their rights to shift tube-wells of the complainants to appropriate non-Kandi area feeders at their own cost. The complainants cannot claim any benefit as a matter of right, to which they are not entitled.

11.        In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties is allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside no order as to costs.

12.        The appellant/opposite party No. 2 deposited Rs. 15,000/-, with this Commission at the time of filing of appeal. This amount of Rs. 15,000/-, along with interest accured thereon, if any be remitted by the Registry to opposite party No.2 by way of cross cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days from the date of sending of the certified copy of the order to the parties.

13.     The arguments in this case were heard on 06.01.2015 and the order was reserved.  Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

 

                                                                                      (Baldev singh Sekhon)

                                                                          Presiding Member

 

                                                                                    ( H. S. Guram)

                                                                                               Member

January     12 ,2015

RK 2