DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.170 of 25.6.2007<br /> Decided on : 30.8.2007 <br /> <br /> Nachhattar Singh S/o Sh. Gurbax Singh S/o Sh. Uttam Singh, R/o Village Dhapali, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda <br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.A.E.E./S.D.O, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub-urban Sub Division, Bhai Rupta, 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 /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant had applied in the year 1990 for electricity connection for running the tubewell by way of depositing requisite application fee. Form A&A was also submitted with the opposite parties. Demand notice was issued to him in 2001. Its terms and conditions were complied with. A sum of Rs. 15,200/- was deposited by him vide receipt No. 581/33195 dated 4.10.2001. He alleges that opposite parties were bound to release the electricity connection within one month after the compliance of the demand notice was made, but they are not releasing tubewell connection to him. On enquiry, it has been learnt by him that opposite parties are adopting pick and choose method. They are ignoring the seniority and are releasing connections to their own persons who have complied with the demand notices much after the day he has complied with the terms and conditions of the demand notice issued to him. Connections are being released to some persons, who are junior to him. When he raised protest, officials of opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.10,000/- for early release of the electricity connection. It is further added by him that estimate has been prepared by the opposite parties and the requisite material has also been got released from the concerned store. Despite this, connection is not being released to him as he did not fulfill the illegal demand of Rs.10,000/-. He is undergoing financial loss as he is unable to irrigate his land. Apart from this, opposite parties have caused him mental tension, agony and harassment. In these circumstances, complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to release him electricity connection for running the tubewell immediately; pay him Rs. 50,000/- as loss to his crops; Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony and costs of the complaint.<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 the complaint; it is beyond 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 complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, they admit that complainant had applied for electricity connection for tubewell in the year 1990. Requisite application fee was deposited. Demand notice was issued to him. Process for releasing the connection was started. Due to internal policy of the Board, connection could not be released. As per policy of the Board, they were to release him LT connection. Load on the existing Transformer having capacity of 25 KVA was got extended by some other consumer upto 20 BHP. 5 BHP load has to be kept in spare. Accordingly, complainant did not remain entitled for LT connection. His name was converted in the seniority list of HT connections. It will take time for releasing connection to him under HT connection category. They deny deficiency in service and the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.3), affidavit (Ex.C.4) of Sukhcharan Singh, photocopy of payment receipt dated 4.10.2001 (Ex.C.2), photocopy of memo No. 4779 regarding estimate (Ex.C.5), photocopies of site plans (Ex.C.6 to Ex.C.10), photocopy of letter dated 6.6.2007 (Ex. C.11), photocopy of estimate (Ex.C.12), photocopy of Rough Sketch (Ex.C.13), photocopy of list of articles with their value (Ex.C.14), photocopies of two pages of Control Register (Ex.C.15 & Ex.C.16). <br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Er. Bhagwant Singh, photocopy of estimate (Ex.R.2), photocopy of one page of seniority list (Ex.R.3), photocopies of Commercial Circulars Nos. 54/2006, 55/2006 & 13/2006 (Ex.R.4 to Ex.R.6) respectively. <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 parties.<br /> 6. Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that complainant is not consumer. This argument is devoid of merits. Opposite parties admit that complainant had applied for electricity connection for tubewell purpose. Requisite fee with the application was deposited in the year 1990. There is no quarrel about the fact that opposite parties after processing the case had issued demand notice in the year, 2001. In pursuance of the same, complainant has deposited Rs. 15,200/- vide receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.2. In other words, complainant has paid the consideration for availing the services of the opposite parties. We are surprised to hear from the opposite parties that complainant is not consumer. Even if a person makes mere application for electricity connection and he has to pay the necessary charges after the connection is given, he hires the services of the Board for consideration which is promised to be paid and he is consumer. For this, reference may be made to the authority CESE Ltd. Vs. Ruma Banerjee-2005 CTJ-78 (CP)(SCDRC). Similar view has been held in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board and others Vs. Grahak Hit Suraskha Mandal and another-2006(1)CLT-593. <br /> 7. Another submission of Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel for the opposite parties is that complainant had deposited Rs. 15,200/- on 4.10.2001 in pursuance of the demand notice issued by the opposite parties and this complaint was filed on 25.6.2007 and as such, it is barred by time. This argument is wholly untenable. Whatever amount was to be deposited by the complainant on the basis of the demand notice, has been deposited by him. Requisite services are to be rendered by the opposite parties. Complainant cannot forcibly and illegally avail their services. Cause of action for availing the services from the opposite parties is a continuing one. By no stretch of imagination, date of deposit of Rs. 15,200/- can be considered to be the starting point of limitation. In these circumstances, when connection has not so far been released in favour of the complainant, complaint filed by him is well within time.<br /> 8. Some are the undisputed points in this case. They are that complainant had applied for electricity connection for tubewell in the year 1990. Demand notice was issued in the year 2001. On its basis, a sum of Rs. 15,200/- demanded by the opposite parties for releasing the connection was deposited by him vide receipt, copy of which is Ex. C.2. Process for releasing the connection was started by the opposite parties. Connection has not so far been released.<br /> 9. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant vociferously argued that in this case compliance of the demand notice was made by the complainant on 4.10.2001. Thereafter, opposite parties were bound to release the connection to the complainant within a period of two months. Till today, connection has not been released. To the contrary, electricity connections to some other persons, who were junior to the complainant, have been issued. In the case of the complainant, connection is not being released.<br /> 10. Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that LT connection to the complainant was to be released from a Transformer having the capacity of 25 KVA. Another consumer had got the load extended from that Transformer upto 20 BHP. More load on that Transformer can not be put. Accordingly, complainant did not remain entitled for LT connection. His name was converted in the seniority list of HT connections. Connection would be released to him at his turn under HT connection category. For this, he drew our attention to copies of Commercial Circulars Nos. 54/2006, 55/2006 and 13/2006 (Ex.R.4 to Ex.R.6) respectively.<br /> 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. Complainant in his affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.3 reiterates his version in the complaint. Ex.C.5 and Ex. R.2 are the copies of memo No. 4775 dated 27.4.2006 issued by the opposite parties. This letter pertains to the release of connections to the applicants whose A&A Forms bear Sr. Nos.9760, 9538, 9740, 9526, 9677 and 10482. Admittedly, A&A Form No. of the complainant is 9538. His name in the seniority list, copy of which is Ex.C.16, is at Sr. 152. Estimate for release of connection to the complainant and five others was passed by the competent authority vide letter dated 27.4.2006. Assistant Engineer recommended that work of release of the connection would be completed at the earliest. List of material required was also prepared as is evident from Ex.C.14. There are various enclosures with the letter dated 27.4.2006, copy of which is Ex.C.5, vide which estimate was approved. On the back of Ex.C.12 which concerns the release of connection to the complainant, note in the shape of history has been given by the Assistant Engineer according to which one Kuldip Singh of village Dhapali got his load extended upto 20 BHP from Transformer of 25 KVA and on that account, more load cannot be put on this Transformer. It is not known from the note of A.E when Kuldip Singh got the load extended under VDS. Apart from this, A.E commended that another Transformer of 25 KVA which is near and from which connection can be issued to the complainant is the Transformer of Satpal Fauji on which there is a load of 5 BHP only. In other words, A.E recommended connection to the complainant from the Transformer of 25 KVA concerning Satpal Fauji. Despite this, electricity connection has not been released to the complainant, although he has made compliance of the demand notice long ago in the year 2001. Estimate was approved on 27.4.2006. Commercial Circulars Nos. 54/2006 and 55/2006 are dated 20.10.2006 and 31.10.2006 respectively. They pertain to Voluntary Disclosure Scheme vis-a-vis compulsory regularization of unauthorised extension in load by agriculture tubewell consumers and Voluntary Disclosure Scheme (VDS) for DS/NRS category of consumers- Connected load and meter status. As per Commercial Circular No. 54/2006, the scheme for getting the unauthorised load regularised was effective from 1.11.2006 to 31.1.2007. Tubewell connection on LT supply could be released upto 30.9.2006 as per Commercial Circular No. 13/2006. No explanation has been furnished by the opposite parties as to why upto 30.9.2006 connection could not be released to the complainant, particularly when estimate has been approved and it has been recommended by the A.E that Transformer of Satpal Fauji which is near to the field of the complainant could bear the load. To the contrary, connections have been released to the persons who were junior to him in the seniority. This fact is evident from the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Bhagwant Singh, SDO/AEE according to which connections have been released to the persons at Sr. Nos. 154, 155, 159, 162, 188 and 189. Name of the complainant figures at Sr. No. 152 in the seniority list. When this aspect of the matter is considered, it is a case of great high handedness and discrimination towards the complainant at the hands of the opposite parties. They have adopted pick and choose method for releasing the electricity connection for tubewell purpose. We are constrained to remark that opposite parties are not maintaining proper record. They themselves are relying upon one page of the seniority list, copy of which is Ex.R.3. A perusal of this document reveals that they are maintaining the record as per their convenience and against all canons of propriety. It appears that in order to accommodate some persons, seniority has been changed by adding A,B,C with some seniority numbers such as 66, 66-A, 72, 72-A, 77, 77-A, 77-B, 78, 78-A, 78-B and 78-C. In these circumstances, opposite parties are certainly deficient in rendering services to the complainant. <br /> 12. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant in the given situation. As per our foregoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to release electricity connection to the complainant. Complainant is craving for compensation on account of mental tension, agony and loss undergone by him. Opposite parties got deposited the amount of Rs. 15,200/- on 4.10.2001 on the basis of the demand notice. In case, they were not in a position to release the electricity connection, what was the necessity to issue demand notice and to get the amount deposited. Opposite parties have used the amount of the complainant. To the contrary, he is not getting any return of the amount deposited by him. He has been discriminated for the release of electricity connection. All this must have caused him serious prejudice, mental tension and agony for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs.5,000/- in view of the authority J.Radhakrishnan Vs. A Basheera & Another-2001(2)CLT-225(M.P.) wherein it has been held that award of compensation always involves some sort of speculation and it is very difficult to quantify the amount of compensation on a rationale basis.<br /> 13. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 14. 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) Release electricity connection to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order as he has already made compliance of the demand notice.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iii) Compliance with regard to payment of costs and compensation be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 15. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 30.8.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />