DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 346 of 5.12.2007<br /> Decided on : 25.1.2008<br /> <br /> Ajaib Singh S/o Sh. Chand Singh S/o Sh. Gurdit Singh, R/o Village Mehraj Patti Kala, Tehsil Phul, 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 Elecy. Board, Suburban, Rampura Phul, 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. Abhey Singla, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. Complainant has preferred this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties seeking direction from this Forum to them to restore his Atta Chakki connection immediately; replace the present Transformer of 6.3 KW with original 25 KW Transformer; not to remove poles and wires and electricity meter. Further prayer is that they should pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and botheration; Rs. 200/- per day from the date of complaint till restoration of the electricity connection, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant is that he had applied for electricity connection for Atta Chakki for earning livelihood. All the formalities were completed as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties. In case, the connection is for Atta Chakki, security amount is heavy and electricity meter is of more power. After verifying the documents and visiting the spot, necessary estimate was prepared which was duly approved by the higher officers of the Board. Demand notice was issued to him for depositing Rs. 71,250/- which included price of 25 KW Transformer, cables and poles. Amount was deposited vide receipt No. 201 dated 20.10.2006. After obtaining necessary permission from the Head Office, connection bearing A/c No. BP-17/0040 was released. Bills as per consumption were issued which were duly paid from time to time. Amount of the last bill dated 29.9.2007 was deposited on 27.10.2007. Another bill dated 29.11.2007 was issued. It was delivered to him on 3.12.2007. It was payable by 11.12.2007. Employees of the opposite parties came to his premises and disconnected the connection by removing jumpers at his back without assigning any reason and without serving any notice. They went to the extent of removing 25 KW Transformer and replacing it with 6.3 KW Transformer. It is added by him (complainant) that he and his family members are dependent on the earnings from the Atta Chakki. They have no other source of livelihood. Disconnection of electricity connection and change of Transformer is illegal. He apprehends that opposite parties would change the nature and quality of the wire and remove the poles. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed reply of the complaint admitting that their employees have disconnected the electricity connection and have removed the Transformer. Complainant did not apply for release of Atta Chakki. Rather, he had applied for electricity connection for Masala Chakki. Security amount for Chakki is more than the security amount of domestic connection. Connection was obtained by the complainant by mis-representation of facts. He has A.P connection for running tubewell at a distance of only about 20 metres from the alleged Chakki. The site of Chakki is beyond 500 metres from Circular Road (Phirni). As per rules, no connection could have been released in his name for running Chakki at the site in dispute. Senior Executive Engineer (Technical Audit), Bathinda was making inquiry with regard to A.P connection installed in the name of the complainant. At the time of inspection, it came to his notice that estimate No. 63562/06-07 was sanctioned by Er. Dial Singh, Senior Executive Engineer, Rampura on 17.8.2006. After passing of the estimate, letters No. 11391 dated 4.12.2006 and 2437 dated 21.3.2007 were written. It was mentioned in them that connection of Masala Chakki cannot be released in fields. Instruction was issued not to release the connection. Concerned officials of the Sub Division wrongly released the connection at the site which is more than 500 metres away from the Circular Road (Phirni). A.P connection is connection with rural feeder, whereas Transformer for Chakki gets supply from Urban Feeder. Ajaib Singh had been mis-using the connection for Chakki and was using the same for running his tubewell on urban Feeder causing loss to the Board. Senior Executive Engineer(Distribution) after considering all the facts, vide his letter dated No. 9329 dated 15.11.2007 gave direction to cancel the connection. Transformer was removed as connection was released against rules and regulations. Even if the cost of the Transformer was included in the estimate, even then complainant does not become owner of the Transformer. Service Connection Order for release of connection was issued in July, 2006. As per rules, after one year even in OYT Scheme, the Transformer becomes property of the Punjab State Electricity Board. They admit that bill dated 29.11.2007 was issued. <br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Ajaib Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits EX.C.1 & Ex.C.6, affidavits of S/Sh. Gurmail Singh & Naib Singh which are Ex.C.7 & Ex.C.8 respectively, photocopies of bills (Ex.C.2, Ex. C.4 & Ex.C.5) & photocopy of payment receipt (Ex.C.3).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Sarabjit Singh Kalsi, SDO and photocopies of four pages of estimate (Ex.R.2). <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 7. Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that connection was obtained by the complainant by mis-statement of facts. His AP connection for running the tubewell is at a distance of 20 metres from the alleged Chakki. The site of the Chakki is beyond 500 metres from the Circular Road (Phirni). Connection was released against rules and regulations. After inquiry, Senior Executive Engineer, Distribution, Rampura vide his letter No. 9329 dated 15.11.2007 had issued direction to cancel the connection. Moreover, connection was taken for Masala Chakki as is evident from copy of A&A Form attached with the reply of the complaint. Infact residence of the Complainant is not within 500 metres from the inhibited area of his village. Charges for Transformer were not got deposited from the complainant although its price has been recorded in the estimate (Ex.R.2).<br /> 8. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant argued that electricity connection was released to the complainant by the opposite parties after verifying the documents, visiting the spot, preparing the estimate and getting approval of the higher authorities. Demand notice was issued on the basis of which a sum of Rs. 71,250/- was deposited which included the price of 25 KW Transformer, wires and poles. Bills for consumption from time to time were deposited. Copies of the bills are Ex.C.2, Ex.C.4 & Ex.C.5 and Ex.C.3 is the copy of the payment receipt. Bill dated 29.11.2007 payable by 11.12.2007 was also issued, but before the due date, electricity connection was disconnected. Transformer of 25 KW was replaced with Transformer of 6.3 KW without disclosing any reason and without serving any notice. <br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments. Complainant has reiterated his version in his affidavits Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.6. Ex.C.7 and Ex.C.8 are the affidavits of S/Sh. Gurmail Singh, Sarpanch of village Mehraj Patti Kala and Naib Singh respectively. They have both stated that Grinder/Atta Chakki/Masala Chakki are one and the same. Floor or Masala are grinded on Chakki. Masala can be crushed with Atta Chakki. Complainant is doing the work at small scale. Infact, it is a grinder. As per version of the complainant, a sum of Rs. 71,250/- was deposited by him before release of the connection. There is no specific denial regarding deposit of this amount on the part of the opposite parties. Estimate, copy of which is Ex.R.2, was for Rs. 1,38,312/-. In the absence of any specific evidence that the price of the Transformer was also deposited by the complainant, it is difficult to conclude that Transformer of 25 KVA is the exclusive property of the complainant. No notice before disconnection of the electricity connection of the complainant was served upon him. No one can be condemned unheard. Opposite parties could not show that the charges for Atta Chakki are more than the charges for Masala Chakki. Complainant was using the Chakki connection. No lapse on his part in making the payment of the consumption charges has been brought to our notice. Opposite parties have disconnected his electricity connection without disclosing any reason and without affording opportunity of being heard. Hence, violation of the principles of natural justice is also established. It is not out of mention<br /> <br /> here that electricity connection is released after verifying the documents, visiting the spot, preparing the estimate and in such like even after connection getting approval of the competent authority. Complainant in his affidavit Ex.C.6 has made it clear that before release of electricity connection, an application was moved by him. Opposite parties had obtained the report of Sh. Baljit Singh, Patwari and he had reported that his (complainant's) residence falls within 500 meters of the inhibited area. He further states in Ex.C.6 that this fact was further confirmed by the officials of the opposite parties and that even distance was measured when wires were put. Bald affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Sarabjit Singh Kalsi is not sufficient to rebut the evidence of the complainant and the facts and circumstances in his favour. Connection was released to the complainant after completing the requisite formalities. It is not their case that concerned officers /officials who dealt with the case of the complainant were not competent. Opposite parties did not muster courage to place on record the inquiry report of Senior Executive Engineer (Technical Audit), Bathinda. The mode and manner through which opposite parties came to the conclusion that place where Chakki has been installed by the complainant is at a distance of more than 500 metres from the inhibited area (Phirni) of the village, is not known. Mere allegation of the opposite parties that tubewell connection of the complainant is at a distance of 20 metres from the site of the Chakki does not advance their cause. Complainant is dependent upon the income of the Chakki. He has availed the services of the opposite parties for consideration. Hence, he is consumer. Act of the opposite parties in disconnecting the connection shows high handedness and arbitrariness. All of sudden, they disconnected the connection without providing any opportunity of hearing to him. This must have caused mental tension, harassment and botheration to him. Admittedly, Atta Chakki connection has been restored on the basis of our order dated<br /> <br /> 19.12.2007. Transformer has been installed for running it and the connection is running. In our view, this itself is not sufficient to hold that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is not proved.<br /> 10. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Complainant seeks the relief of restoration of the Atta Chakki connection, replacement of the Transformer and non-removal of the poles and meter. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant conceded at bar that all this has been done by the opposite parties during the pendency of the complaint on the basis of the order passed by this Forum on 19.12.2007. When relief to this extent has already been accorded, further direction to this effect is not required. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental agony and botheration. In view of our forgoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to pay some compensation on this aspect of the matter. Accordingly,we assess it as Rs. 1,000/-. Prayer of the complainant is also for direction to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 200/- per day from the date of disconnection till restoration of the electricity connection. There is no evidence of the complainant to substantiate it. No criteria has been brought to our notice for claiming the amount on this aspect of the matter. Hence, prayer on this count is declined.<br /> 11. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( ii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 12. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned. <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 25.1.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br />