DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. 354 of 20.12.2007<br /> Decided on : 10.3.2008<br /> <br /> Gurcharan Singh S/o Kehar Singh S/o Bholu Singh, R/o Village Malka Gwara, Near Shivalia Mandir, Bhai Rupa, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus.<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.S.D.O./A.E.E., Punjab State Electricity Board, Bhai Rupa, District Bathinda<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. S.S. Dhillon, Advocate<br /> O R D E R.<br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. Complainant is owner of sufficient agricultural land. Electricity connection of 5 BHP for running tubewell was applied for by him in the year 1990 under general category. Demand notice was issued by the opposite parties. A sum of Rs. 15,200/- was deposited by him vide receipt No. 465 dated 26.9.2001. It is averred by him (complainant) that opposite parties were required to release tubewell connection within two months after he fulfilled the conditions of demand notice. Despite this, connection has not been released till date although period of more than six years has expired. His turn for release of connection has come. He is suffering financial loss to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per Killa for the last six years todate. Requisite material has been withdrawn from the store by the officials. Poles have been installed. Cable has also been laid. Transformer is not being installed with intention to get illegal gratification. He is undergoing mental tension. In these circumstances, instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to release the tubewell connection immediately; pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and botheration and Rs. 10,000/- as loss per financial year from the date of deposit of the money till realization. <br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file it; complaint is barred by limitation; complainant is not consumer; he has not come with clean hands; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and it is false and frivolous. On merits, they admit that electricity connection for running the tubewell was applied for by the complainant in the year 1990. Demand notice was issued to him so that on its compliance process for release of connection may be started. There is no specific denial about the deposit of the amount of Rs.15,200/- on 26.9.2001. Total requisite material for release of the connection has not been withdrawn from the store. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurcharan Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.3), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex.C.2), photocopy of Release Order (Ex.C.4), photocopy of one page of Stock Register (Ex.C.5) & photocopies of photographs.<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Assistant Engineer, photocopy of Installation Order (Ex.R.2), photocopy of one page of Stock Register (Ex.R.3), photocopy of seniority list (Tentative) (Ex.C.4), photocopy of Commercial Circular No. 25/2006 (Ex.R.5) and photocopy of one page of register regarding seniority from the date of demand notice (Ex.R.6).<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the opposite parties.<br /> 6. One of the objection taken by the opposite parties is that complainant is not consumer. For this, learned counsel for the opposite parties cited Accounts Officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Anr. Vs. Anwar Ali-2007( 4 )ICC-834. <br /> 7. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant is consumer as a sum of Rs. 15,200/- has been got deposited by him for providing the services by the opposite parties.<br /> 8. We have considered these rival arguments. With utmost regard and humility to the authority relied upon by the opposite parties, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have remanded the matter in that case to the Hon'ble National Commission to record positive findings on the aspect as to whether consumer of electricity is covered by the definition of consumer. Learned counsel for the opposite parties could not bring to our notice that Hon'ble National Commission has held that in such like cases complainant is not consumer. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 15,200/- has been got deposited from the complainant by the opposite parties. Now nothing is to be done by the complainant as opposite parties are to release the electricity connection as per his seniority. He is availing their services for consideration. Hence, we are of the view that in this case, complainant is consumer. In the case of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs. Neeraj Kumar-2007 CTJ-300 (CP)(SCDRC), it has been held that Consumer Foras/Commissions have the jurisdiction not only to decide every kind of dispute under the Electricity Act, 2003, but have also the jurisdiction to decide any question of law arising from the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.<br /> 9. Submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that demand notice was issued on 26.9.2001, whereas complaint has been filed in the year 2007 and as such, it is barred by time. For this, he relied upon the authority K.D Sebastian Vs. The Electrical Inspector, Kerala State Electricity Board and others-2003(1)CLT-460. Matter regarding the release of electricity connection applied for by the complainant is a continuing one, particularly when opposite parties have not so far declined to release it. Compliance of the demand notice on 26.9.2001 does not give cause of action to the complainant for filing the complaint. With regard to this authority, it is distinguishable on facts. In that case, Hon'ble High Court had ordered re-connection of electricity connection to the applicant on deposit of Rs. 500/- plus re-connection charges. There was no material before the Hon'ble National Commission to support any follow up of the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Appellant had not applied for re-connection after competing the necessary formalities till the passing of the order by Hon'ble State Commission. It is not so in this case as complainant has made compliance of the demand notice as well, but connection has not so far been released nor declined.<br /> 10. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant argued that when complainant has made compliance of the demand notice on 26.9.2001, installation order has already been issued, some material has been withdrawn from the store, opposite parties are bound to release the connection, but it has not been released. He further argued that Commercial Circular No. 25/2006 is not applicable in the case of the complainant. <br /> 11. Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that complainant is not entitled to immediate release of the electricity connection as per the seniority list and in view of Commercial Circular No. 25/2006.<br /> 12. We have considered respective contentions. Admittedly, electricity connection was applied for in the year 1990. Demand notice was issued in pursuance of it. A sum of Rs. 15,200/- was got deposited from the complainant on 26.9.2001. Installation Order, copies of which are Ex.C.4 and Ex.R.2, was issued in January, 2006. Some material was also withdrawn from the Store as is evident from the copy of the copies of the Stock Register Ex.C.5 & Ex.R.3. Copies of the photographs Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7 reveal that poles have also been installed and wires have been laid upto the site for connection. Now question is as to whether applied for electricity connection can be got released to the complainant immediately. The answer to our minds is in the negative. Opposite parties have placed on record copies of the seniority lists which are Ex.R.4 and Ex.R.6. Mr. Gagandeep Singh, SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Bhai Rupa has made separate statement clarifying that as per seniority of general category which is now prevailing, the name of the complainant figures at Sr. No. 165 and tubewell connections have been released upto Sr. No. 13 and that this seniority list has been maintained as per Commercial Circular No. 25/2006. Previously the seniority number of the complainant was 68 and as per previous seniority list, tubewell connections upto Sr. No. 50 were released. Substantiative part of Commercial Circular No. 25/2006 reads as under :-<br /> “As per present tubewell policy the cut off date for issue of demand notices under general category is 31.3.91. However it has been reported that under some Sub-Divisions, the tubewell connections have been released to applicants registered upto 31.3.91 whereas in some other areas, applicants registered during 1984-85 are still waiting for release of connection. In order to remove this disparity, the matter has been considered and it has been decided as under:-<br /> ( i ) Issue of material for release of new AP tubewell connections will be allowed only in respect of test report received against applications registered upto 31.3.88 in the order of seniority based on the date of registration of the application. <br /> ( ii ) No material shall be issued by Stores Orgn. for the release of tubewell connections under general category against applications registered after 31.3.98 till the backlog of applications registered upto 31.3.88 is cleared in all the zones and revised instructions will be issued thereafter.<br /> ( iii ) The works already in hand for which sufficient material stand issued before 31.5.2006 shall be completed and may not be withheld on account of above instructions. However, where only poles and fittings/stay set etc. have been issued, no further material be issued.<br /> ( iv ) All out effort shall be made by the field officers to clear the applications registered upto 31.3.88 and a certificate to the effect that all the AP T/W applications registered upto 31.3.88 under general category have been released T/W connections and no application registered upto 31.3.88 under general category is pending, shall be sent by the concerned CE/DS to CE/Commercial.”<br /> 13. Policy for release of electricity connections is to be determined by the Board. It being so, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that Commercial Circular No. 25/2006 is not applicable in his case. Connection cannot be released to the complainant out of turn merely on the ground that Installation Order has been issued and some material has been withdrawn from the Store in view of the policy of the Board as per Commercial Circular No. 25/2006. It is not a case where he is senior to all the applicants who have applied for tubewell connections under general category or electricity connection has been released to any other person junior to him.<br /> 14. Another question is as to whether there is deficiency in service on the part o the opposite parties. Connection was applied for in the year 1990. It took more than eleven years for the Board to issue demand notice. When connection could not be released or was not to be released to the complainant within reasonable time, what was the necessity to issue demand notice directing him to deposit Rs. 15,200/-. Opposite parties are using the amount deposited by him to his detriment without giving anything in return to him. It really amounts to undue enrichment on the part of the Board. We fail to understand as to why in September, 2001 amount of Rs. 15,200/- has been got deposited from the complainant when in the near future Board was not in a position to release the connection. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 15. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of this case, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Chhota Singh, Appeal No. 331 of 2005 decided on 22.3.2005 and of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Zora Singh and others-2005 CTJ-1077 (SC)(CP).<br /> 16. In the result, complaint is accepted against the opposite parties with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Refund Rs. 15,200/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of deposit till payment.<br /> ( ii ) Issue demand notice to the complainant when in the category of the applicants in which he has applied, he is only about five places away from the last applicant who has been given the connection. <br /> ( iii ) After the compliance of the demand notice as referred to above, tubewell connection be released as per his seniority which would be determined from the date of registration of the application and not from the date the demand notice is issued. <br /> ( iv ) Refund of the amount of Rs. 15,200/- and acceptance of the same by the complainant would not amount to cancellation of his application for tubewell connection.<br /> ( v ) Pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and botheration under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> 17. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 10.3.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />