DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.99 of 20.4.2007<br /> Decided on : 18.7.2007 <br /> <br /> Kulwant Singh S/o Arjan Singh S/o Sh. Prem Singh, R/o Village Teona, Tehsil & District Bathinda. <br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Sr. Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Division, Bathinda.<br /> 2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub-Urban Sub Division, 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. H.S. Grewal, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to get the amount of demand notice deposited as per earlier estimate or prepare fresh estimate from other directions as shown in the site plan and then get the amount deposited as per new estimate; release tubewell connection to him forthwith; pay Rs. 20,000/- as price of diesel purchased by him for irrigation of his fields alongwith interest @ 18% P.A from the dates of purchase till payment; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and loss to physical health, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass as under :-<br /> Complainant, his sons Sarabjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh, his brother Bant Singh and his nephews Daljit Singh and Balkaran Singh sons of Bant Singh were co-sharers and in joint cultivation of agricultural land measuring 25 Kanals 7 Marlas situated in the revenue limits of village Teona, Tehsil & District Bathinda besides other land which was jointly owned with other persons. Tubewell connection bearing A/c No. AP-TA/38 of 15 BHP was existing in the name of Bant Singh in the land measuring 25 Kanals 7 Marlas. This was being used for irrigation of total land of joint khata. On the basis of the application moved by Bant Singh for partition of the land, joint khata was partitioned by Assistant Collector Ist Grade (Tehsildar), Bathinda. Land measuring 13 Kanals 3 Marlas described in the complaint fell to the share of Bant Singh and his sons, while land measuring 10 Kanals 3 Marlas comprising of Khasra Nos.95//7/1(3-0) & 8/1(7-5) fell to his share and the shares of his sons. Mutation No. 4945 was sanctioned. Land where above mentioned tubewell connection has been installed has fallen to the share of Bant Singh. Due to this, land of his share remained un-irrigated. In order to get his land properly irrigated and to get accurate produce therefrom as per Sales Regulation No. 36.2 and Commercial Circular No. 12/2004, application form and agreement dated 1.9.2006 were submitted to the opposite parties alongwith affidavit of his brother Bant Singh having no objection for splitting already existing tubewell connection. Other relevant documents regarding partition of the joint khata were also submitted. Application was accepted and opposite party No.2 had got deposited Rs.1,500/- as ACD vide receipt No. 583/66510 dated 4.9.2006. Case was processed. Opposite party No.2 got prepared estimate for splitting the connection. Total estimated cost worked out by opposite party No. 2 is Rs.14,059/-. Case was sent to opposite party No.1 vide letter No. 1319 dated 26.9.2006. He was approaching the opposite parties to release the connection, but they continued putting off the matter. Opposite party No.2 issued demand notice No. 489 dated 10.4.2007 directing him to pay Rs. 67,540/-. He assails this demand as illegal, null and void, against law and facts and arbitrary and prays that it is liable to be quashed. Opposite parties themselves prepared the estimate for Rs. 14,059/-. No reasons has been assigned why 6-1/2 months were consumed in issuing the demand notice for Rs. 67,540/-. He alleges that opposite parties are negligent in issuing the demand notice. In order to cause more and more loss to him, they caused delay in issuing the demand notice. Opposite parties have opted to energize new electric connection to him from the existing transformer of 25 KVA where electric connection of 15 BHP is already running in the name of his brother Bant Singh, the distance of which upto his connection point is 38 Karams. However, there exists HT line which is at a distance of 19 Karams upto his new connection point and there is another transformer which is at a distance of 14 Karams from his connection point. Position has been shown in the site plan. Though he is entitled to get connection from 25 KVA transformer where tubewell connection in the name of his brother exists, but in case this Forum comes to the conclusion that it is not possible for giving connection from that point at the cost of Rs. 14,059/-, then alternatively connection may be ordered to be given from existing HT line at point 'A' or from existing transformer of Mukhtiar Singh at point 'C' shown in the site plan. It would cost less amount in view of less distance. Request was made to the opposite parties to withdraw the demand notice dated 10.4.2007 and issue demand notice as per earlier estimate or get a new estimate prepared as per less distance from other directions and issue fresh demand notice and release tubewell connection, but they paid no heed. Adamant attitude of the opposite parties has caused him mental tension, agony and loss of physical health. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed reply of the complaint taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action; this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complaint is false and frivolous and complainant is not consumer. Splitting of electricity connections to different heirs is governed by Sales Regulation No. 13.6.10 to 13.6.11 and Commercial Circulars No. 38/2003 and 17/2005. As per regulations and circulars, connection can be split into only two connections and not more to the legal heirs subject to their completing the requisite formalities. In the present case, after formalities were completed, connection was allowed to be split into two as per rules of the Board. Demand notice No. 389 dated 10.4.2007 raising demand of Rs. 67,540/- on the basis of the estimate as per rules was issued. Complainant failed to comply with it. Hence, connection could not be split. Connection is to be given from 10 KV new transformer and the distance of new connection is about 110 meters and not 19 Karams. Negligence is on the part of the complainant and not on their part. On merits, they admit that previous connection is in the name of Bant Singh. Complainant had applied for splitting the connection by way of depositing Rs. 1,500/- as ACD. Amount has been got deposited @ Rs. 200/- per BHP on the connection of 7.5 BHP. No demand notice demanding Rs. 14,059/- was sent nor was any such alleged letter issued to the complainant. They assert that demand notice dated 10.4.2007 is legal. As regards the time period for installation of the connection from the compliance of the demand notice, it is as per Sales Manual Instruction No. 24 which is for release of new connections and the time period for the same too starts from the compliance of the demand notice. Besides time frame for grant of connection is subject to availability of requisite material, particularly poles, conductors, transformers and insulators. Even otherwise, according to Commercial Circular No. 57/2001 read with Commercial Circular No. 52/03, time limit for release of connection has been deleted. In this case, distance of splitting the connection is 110 meters and not 38 Karams. Connection cannot be released from direct line due to technical reasons as transformer is technically required for the release of connection. They deny t he remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Kulwant Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), affidavit (Ex.C.2) of his brother Bant Singh, photocopy of demand notice dated 10.4.2007 (Ex.C.3), photocopy of application form (Ex.C.4), photocopy of affidavit of Bant Singh (Ex.C.5), photocopy of Sanad Taksim (Ex.C.6), photocopy of receipt (Ex.C.7), photocopy of Jamabandi (Ex.C.8), site plan (Ex.C.9), estimate (Ex.C.10), photocopies of Commercial Circulars No. 38/2003 and 12/2004. <br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Er. R.K. Singla, S.D.O., photocopy of demand notice (Ex.R.2), photocopy of memo No. 1906 dated 8.3.2007 regarding estimate, rough sketch and expenditure detail (Ex.R.3 to Ex.R.5).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by opposite parties.<br /> 7. Tubewell connection bearing A/c No. AP-TA/38 of 15 BHP is existing in the name of Bant Singh brother of the complainant. Opposite parties do not deny specifically that complainant, his sons, his brother and nephews did not own and possess land measuring 25 Kanals and 7 Marlas and that on the basis of the partition, mutation No. 4945 has been sanctioned. Complainant has reiterated his version in his affidavit Ex.C.2 which stands corroborated with the affidavit of his brother Bant Singh. Copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 is Ex.C.8 which also establishes that mutation regarding partition has been sanctioned. Complainant has submitted application form/agreement to the opposite parties, copy of which is Ex.C.4. Bant Singh gave his affidavit, copy of which is Ex.C.5, stating that he has no objection if ½ share of the tubewell to the extent of 7.5 BHP is given to his brother Kulwant Singh. Complainant deposited Rs. 1,500/- with opposite party No.2 on 4.9.2006 vide receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.7. Even opposite parties admit that after the complainant completed the requisite formalities for splitting the connection, it was allowed to be split up into two as per rules and demand notice No. 389 dated 10.4.2007 demanding Rs. 67,540/- has been issued on the basis of the estimate.<br /> 8. Mr. Grewal learned counsel for the complainant contended that opposite parties had processed splitting up case of the complainant. Opposite party No.2 had got prepared estimate and total estimated cost worked out was Rs. 14,059/- as is evident from Ex.C.10 and that case was sent to opposite party No. vide letter No. 1319 dated 26.9.2006. Despite this, opposite party No.2 issued impugned demand notice No. 389 dated 10.4.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.3, which is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified and is liable to be quashed as it has been issued in order to cause more and more loss to the complainant. His next submission is that opposite parties have opted to energize new tubewell connection to the complainant from the 25 KVA transformer shown in the site plan Ex.C.9 where electric connection of 15 BHP is already running in the name of Bant Singh, the distance of which upto the connection point of the complainant is 38 Karams. However, there exists HT line which is at a distance of 19 Karams upto the connection point of the complainant and there is another transformer which is at a distance of 14 Karmas from the connection point of the complainant. In these circumstances, complainant is entitled to get the connection from 25 KVA transformer where tubewell connection is already in the name of his brother. Even if it is taken that it is not possible for giving connection from that point on cost of Rs. 14,059/-, connection can be ordered to be given from the existing HT line at point 'A' or from existing transformer of Mukhtiar Singh at point 'C' shown in the site plan Ex.C.9 which would cost less amount. His next argument is that opposite parties cannot delay the release of the connection indefinitely on one pretext or the other.<br /> 9. Mr. Nayyar, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that splitting of electricity connections to different legal heirs is governed by Sales Regulation No. 13.6.10 to 13.6.11 and Commercial Circulars No. 38/2003, 17/2005 & 38/2005. Splitting of the connection in this case has been allowed and demand notice has been issued, copy of which is Ex.R.2, on the basis of the estimate, rough sketch and expenditure details, copies of which are Ex.R.3 to Ex.R.5. Complainant cannot claim that tubewell connection be given to him from a particular point after splitting the tubewell connection of 15 BHP in the name of Bant Singh into two of 7.5 BHP each. Moreover, there is no time limit for releasing the connection to the complainant. Time frame for release of connection is subject to availability of requisite material, particularly poles, conductors, transformers and insulators after the compliance of the demand notice is made.<br /> 10. We have considered respective arguments. No-doubt, complainant has placed on record copy of the estimate Ex.C.10 prepared by the opposite parties. According to it, amount worked out is Rs. 14,059/-. Complainant cannot derive any benefit from this document as no demand notice on its basis has been issued to the complainant nor has it been shown to have been approved by the competent authority. Commercial Circular No. 38/2005 came into force w.e.f. 6.6.2005. According to it, new AP tubewell connections on or after 1.4.2005 are to be released only on 11 KV for which distribution transformer is to be purchased/supplied by prospective consumer. According to Commercial Circulars no. 38/2003 and 12/2004, copies of which are Ex.C.11 and Ex.C.12, differential of service connection charges are to be charged from all consumers to whom connection ( s ) are allowed after splitting at the latest prevalent rate or actual cost of shifting whichever is higher. Punjab State Electricity Board is the licensee. Consumer cannot direct the licensee to allow connection to him from any particular point on the ground that it would cost less expenses. Learned counsel for the complainant failed to show us that by way of issuing the impugned demand notice, opposite parties are not proceeding in accordance with the Sales Regulations and relevant Commercial Circulars. So far as the estimate of Rs. 14,059/- is concerned, it cannot be said to have gone beyond the office of the opposite parties. In other words, it remained an internal matter of the opposite parties. Actual cost of splitting the tubewell connection is to be borne by the consumer. Details of the amount demanded by the opposite parties become evident from the documents, copies of which are Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.5. Rates etc. of items have been shown in Ex.R.5. Convenience of the complainant cannot be the criteria for releasing the connection. They are required to proceed in accordance with the Sales Regulations and Commercial Circulars. Accordingly, they are proceeding. No malafide on the part of the opposite parties in raising the demand of Rs.67,540/- has been alleged and proved by the complainant. Opposite parties have specifically pleaded that connection cannot be released to the complainant from direct line due to technical reasons as transformer is required for release of connection. Moreover, connection is to be released to him from a new 10 KV transformer and not 25 KVA transformer. Technicalities and feasibilities for release of the connection by way of splitting the original connection are to be determined and observed by the opposite parties under the rules and not as per directions and convenience of the consumer. Stance of the opposite parties stands supported with the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. R.K. Singla, SDO, PSEB, Operation, Sub-urban Sub Division, Bathinda. According to Ex.R.1, connection is to be given to the complainant from 10 KV new transformer and the distance of the new connection is about 110 meters and not 19 Karams as has been alleged by him. It is further in it that demand notice raising demand of Rs. 67,540/- has been issued on the basis of the estimate as per rules of the Board. Accordingly, prayer of the complainant that the amount be got deposited as per earlier estimate or fresh estimate be got prepared from other directions and amount be got deposited as per new estimate, is not acceptable.<br /> 11. Opposite parties have taken the plea that there is no time limit for release of the connection after the compliance of the demand notice is made as grant of connection is subject to availability of requisite material, particularly poles, conductors, transformers and insulators. No-doubt, complainant has not so far made compliance of the demand notice in question which is not arbitrary or illegal, yet opposite parties cannot say that even after compliance of the demand notice, they are not bound to release the connection as there is no time limit. Connection after the compliance of the demand notice is made deserves to be released within reasonable time as demand notice should have been issued very carefully and cautiously keeping in view the availability of the material etc. with the opposite parties. On this aspect of the matter, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in saying that there is no time limit for release of connections after compliance of demand notice.<br /> 12. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our foregoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to get the amount mentioned in the demand notice, copy of which is Ex.C.3, and any other amount chargeable under the rules deposited from the complainant and after the amount is deposited by him, split connection bearing A/c No. AP-TA/38 of 15 BHP into two of 7.5 BHP each i.e. 7.5 BHP in the name of Bant Singh and 7.5 BHP in the name of complainant and release the connection of 7.5 BHP to the complainant within two months. Complainant is claiming Rs. 20,000/- as price of the diesel used by him and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. He has not made compliance of the demand notice so far which is legal and valid. There is no cogent and convincing led by the complainant to prove that he has purchased diesel worth Rs. 20,000/- for irrigation of the fields. In the circumstances, there is no case to allow his prayer in the form of giving direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- or Rs. 50,000/-.<br /> 13. In view of our foregoing discussion, complaint is accepted against the opposite parties, but with no order as to costs. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Get deposited the amount mentioned in the demand notice, copy of which is Ex.C.3 as per its terms and conditions and any other amount chargeable under the rules from the complainant.<br /> ( ii ) If the amount as per demand notice and any other amount, if any, due under the rules/regulations of the Board is deposited by the complainant, they would split tubewell connection bearing A/c No. AP-TA/38 of 15 BHP into two of 7.5 BHP each in the names of Bant Singh and complainant and release connection of 7.5 BHP in the name of the complainant within two months.<br /> 14. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 18.7.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />