Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/104

Pawan kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

07 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        104

Date of Institution :  27.03.2017

Date of Decision :    7.08.2017

 

Pawan Kumar aged about 59 years s/o Harbans Lal, r/o Himmatpura Basti, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

                                                                       ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its CMD.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Urban, Jaitu, District Faridkot.                                   

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to shift the pole immediately and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a shopkeeper and is earning his livelihood by self employment. It is submitted that OPs installed a pole in front of his shop due to which complainant and his customers feel problem while entering the shop. Complainant wrote letter 29.12.2016 to OPs with request to shift the pole and on asking of OPs, he deposited Rs.500/- vide receipt dated 6.01.2017 with OPs. After inspection of site, OPs prepared the map, detail of materials and made estimate of Rs.3,853/- and then, complainant deposited Rs.3,353/- more after adjusting Rs.500/-vide receipt no.160 dt 10.01.2017. OPs assured complainant to shift the pole within 7 days, but till date, they have not shifted the pole. Complainant has made several requests to Ops to shift the pole from his shop, but they keep lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to shift the pole and prayed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                   Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 28.03.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                           On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that they never assured complainant to shift the pole in seven days. Further asserted that Job Order was issued to concerned JE to shift the pole and when said JE alongwith his staff reached the site to shift the pole, the brother of complainant started raising hue and cry and also quarrelled him and his staff. Brother of complainant did not allow them to shift the pole from said place on the ground that court case is pending between complainant and his brother regarding their property. Thereafter, letter dt 306 dt 30.03.2017 was  issued to complainant vide which he was fully informed about the matter. It is further submitted that pole can not be shifted from that place as there is a property dispute between complainant and his brother. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has not come to the Forum with clean hands. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                     Parties were given proper opportunities        to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 9 and closed the same.

6                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Satwinder Singh as Ex OP-1 and document Ex OP-2 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                         We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

8                                         The ld Counsel for complainant vehementally  argued that complainant is a shopkeeper and is earns his livelihood by self employment. It is submitted that OPs installed a pole in front of his shop due to which complainant and his customers feel problem while entering the shop and therefore, complainant wrote letter 29.12.2016 to OPs with request to shift the pole and on asking of OPs, he deposited Rs.500/- vide receipt dated 6.01.2017. After inspection of site, OPs prepared the map, detail of materials and made estimate of Rs.3,853/- and then, complainant deposited Rs.3,353/- more after adjusting Rs.500/-vide receipt no.160 dt 10.01.2017. OPs assured complainant to shift the pole within 7 days, but till date, they have not shifted the pole despite several requests by complainant and they keep lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other, which amounts to deficiency in service and this act and conduct of Ops has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to shift the pole and also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

9                                  To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that all the allegations levelled by complainant are incorrect and wrong and asserted that they never assured complainant to shift the pole in seven days. Ld Counsel for OPs asserted that Job Order was issued to concerned JE to shift the pole and when said JE alongwith his staff reached the site to shift the pole, the brother of complainant started raising hue and cry and also quarrelled him and his staff. Said brother of complainant did not allow them to shift the pole from said place on the ground that court case is pending between complainant and his brother regarding their property. Thereafter, letter dt 306 dt 30.03.2017 was  issued to complainant vide which he was fully informed about the matter. It is further submitted that pole can not be shifted from that place as there is a property dispute between complainant and his brother. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. All the other allegations are refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

10                                              The case of the complainant is that he runs a shop and OPs installed a pole in front of his shop, which causes hindrance in entering the shop. Complainant wrote letter and also deposited the requisite with Ops as demanded by them to shift the pole from that place. Ops also assured to shift the pole within 7 days, but despite several requests made by complainant, OPs have not redressed his grievance. On the other hand, plea taken by OPs is that on application of complainant, they issued job order and JE of OPs alongwith his staff went to site to shift the pole, but at that place, brother of complainant started quarrelling with them on the ground that a property dispute is pending between complainant and his brother and brother of complainant did not allow them to shift the pole and thereafter, they issued letter dt 30.03.2015 to complainant and informed all the matter.  There is no deficiency in service on their part as pole can not be shifted from that place till the court case is pending.

 

11                                                   To prove his case, complainant has relied upon document Ex C-2 that is a copy of application dt 29.12.2016 given by complainant to Ops requesting them to shift the place from that site, Ex C-3 is the copy of estimate prepared by OPs and Ex C-4 and 5 are receipts clearly showing the fact that complainant deposited the amount demanded by them as requisite fee for shifting the pole. Ex C-7 and 8 are further letters written by complainant with request to shift the pole. On the contrary OPs have not produced on record any document to prove their pleading that any court is pending against complainant regarding his property dispute. On the other hand complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his grievance. Ld Counsel for complainant argued that no dispute regarding property is pending between complainant and his brother in any court of law. The OPs made false story in their defence. However, even if it is presumed that there is any dispute regarding property and any suit is pending between complainant and his co-sharer, then in that case also, the OPs cannot deny the shifting of pole from the site in question to some other place. He has relied upon judgment 2014(3) CPJ 202 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in case titled as SDO, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Kaithal and others Vs Bikram Singh wherein Hon’ble Commission observed that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1) (g), 14 (1) (d) and 15 Electricity – Shifting of electricity pole – Estimated cost of shifting paid – Pole not shifted – District Forum allowed the complaint – Appeal against –

contention, co-sharer of land has not sought shifting of line – Not tenable – Civil suit filed by co-sharer of land has no applicability – Impugned order directed at shifting of H T pole from middle of field to some appropriate place in the same field which would in no way be a hindrance in supply of electricity to other consumers – Complainant has already deposited the shifting charges as per the estimate – Interference declines- Appeal dismissed.

12                    Therefore, from the above discussion and evidence produced by respective parties, we are of the considered opinion that despite several requests and letters written by complainant,  Ops did not shift the pole installed by them in front of his shop to some other place. Plea taken by OPs that a dispute is going on between complainant and his brother has no legs to stand upon in the absence of any documentary proof.  It is observed that complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are hereby directed to shift the pole from the front of his shop and install it somewhere else within one month of receipt of copy of this order. If someone creates hindrance in shifting pole, then in that case, the Ops can take help of Police. Compliance of this order be made within prescribed period, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 7.08.2017                         Member                     President                                                               (P Singla)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)