Complaint No: 42 of 2020.

       Date of Institution: 12.02.2020.

                Date of order:04.01.2024.

Sewa Singh Ghuman Son of Wassan Singh, resident of Village Udhanwal, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur, presently residing Near White Avenue, Ujjagar Nagar, Qadian Road, Batala District Gurdaspur.

                                                                                                                                                                                      .....Complainant.

                                                 VERSUS

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Ghuman, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur, through its S.D.O.

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its X.E.N, Qadian, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur.

3.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Superintendent Engineer, Gurdaspur.

4.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman, The Mall Patiala.

                                                                                                                                                                      .....Opposite parties. 

                                                 Complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Makhan Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.B.S. Malhi, Advocate.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

          Sewa Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against P.S.P.C.Ltd. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is agriculturist and the complainant is having agricultural tubewell connection bearing No.PH 1056 installed by the opposite parties. It was pleaded that the said electric connection took by the complainant in the year 1996 and using the same without any interruption for agricultural purposes and was paying the bills regularly of the said connection as per the policy of the Govt. As such, the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite parties also issued the Passbook to the complainant. It is very much evident from the Passbook that the complainant is paying the bills of the tubewell connection with the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that earlier in the year 1997, the opposite parties threatened the complainant regarding disconnection of the tubewell connection, hence the opposite parties deposited the re-connection fee with the opposite parties vide receipt No. 25847 dated 25.07.1997, which shows that the opposite parties released the tubewell connection to the complainant and since then the complainant is using the above said tubewell connection continuously as the complainant has no source of irrigation except tubewell connection but few days ago the employees of the opposite parties threatened that they will disconnect the tubewell connection of the complainant illegally, forcibly without due course of law on that pretext that the connection of the complainant is not entered in their record. It was further pleaded that in case the opposite parties succeed in disconnecting the tubewell connection of the complainant in that event the complainant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury as the complainant and his family totally dependent upon the agriculture and said tubewell connection is the only source of irrigation to his fields. It was further pleaded that the act of the opposite parties are totally illegal and against the rule and regulations of the opposite parties. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to restrained from disconnecting the tubewell connection of the complainant, illegally, forcibly without due course of law and further directed the opposite parties to enter the A/c No. of the complainant in their record, if it is missed inadvertently. The opposite parties may also be burdened with compensatory costs of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental and physical and deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties alongwith litigation expenses to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply, stating therein that there is no tubewell connection bearing account No. PH 1056 running in the record of the opposite parties i.e. P.S.P.C.L Department in the name of the Complainant i.e. Sewa Singh. It was pleaded that there are two other tubewell connections bearing account No’s.AP-40- 906 of 7.5 BHP and AP-40-1086 of 5 BHP in the name of the complainant i.e. Sewa Singh running in his land as per the record of P.S.P.C.L Department. The complainant has not mentioned the name of village in his complaint where he owns land and the tubewell connection bearing account No.PH-1056 is running at present. It was further pleaded that the fact of the matter is that a temporary tubewell connection was installed in the name of the complainant in the year 1996 and the same was disconnected later on and the same temporary connection could not be permanent as the complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the electricity department. At present, there is no tubewell connection bearing account No.PH-1056 running in the name of the complainant i.e. Sewa Singh as per the official record of the P.S.P.C.L Department. It was further pleaded that the said Pass book tendered by the complainant with this complaint is a fake document.

          On merits, the opposite parties denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sewa Singh Ghuman, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Sushil Gaind, (S.D.O, P.S.P.C. Ltd, Sub – Division Ghoman, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1 alongwith other document as Ex.OP-2.

6.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments filed by both the parties.

8.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.       As detailed above the complainant has stated in the complaint that he has agriculture power connection installed in his land bearing A/c No.PH-1056. It was apprehended by the complainant that opposite parties threatened to disconnect the same and prayed that opposite parties be restrained for disconnection of this tubewell connection. The complainant has not put on record any such evidence in the shape of notice or any other documents issued by the opposite parties showing the threat as mentioned in the complaint. Further complainant has placed on record copy of passbook as Ex.C1 showing that he has paid the electricity charges against this connection upto 02/1997.

10.     Opposite parties in their written reply denied all the allegations and stated that there is no tubewell connection bearing A/c No.PH-1056 existing in the record of the PSPCL. Further, it was pleaded that a temporary connection was issued in the name of the complainant in the year 1996 which was disconnected later on in the year 1997. It is further pleaded that as per Ex.OP-2 there are two other regular tubewell connection in the name of the complainant.

          A joint site report duly signed by the complainant and A.E.E. incharge of the opposite parties was also submitted in the file by the opposite by the opposite party No.2 dated 07.12.2023. As per this report there is one connection running at site and the supply is taken from the same point of supply as that for agriculture connection A/c No.PU-957 belonging to Ajit Singh. It has also been mentioned in the report that there is no record of this connection with their department.

11.     It has also been argued by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that this connection is regular connection connected by the opposite parties but on the other hand Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has argued that it has never been connected by the opposite parties as it is not a legal connection. Further, opposite parties have also placed on record a commercial circular No.10/2006 dated 01.03.2006 of the department showing that the electricity charges of the agriculture connections was made free w.e.f. 01.09.2005 but the complainant has not shown any proof of the deposit of the bills from 1997 to 2005, which also shows that it was only a temporary connection released from 1996 to 1997. Copy of the ledger was placed on record alongwith this report which also shows that A/c No.PH-1056 was a temporary connection.

12.     Complainant fails to produce on record the deposit of the electricity bills for the period from 1997 to 2005 against this disputed connection if it was a regular connection. He has also not produced any other cogent evidence to prove that the agriculture connection No.PH-1056 is a regular tubewell connection released to him. It is clear from the evidence put on record by the opposite parties that the tubwell connection under this account number was a temporary connection. Further, the receipt placed at Ex.C2 shows the word RCO but it has not been mentioned that whether it is for regular connection. As per statement of opposite parties there are other two other regular electricity connections existing at site in the name of the complainant. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has argued that opposite parties have never issued any notice regarding disconnection of this disputed connection as it has come to their notice after filing of this present complaint. It has also not been explained by the complainant that how the matter related to 1996-1997 has been cropped up now after a gap of more than 25 years without any cause of action on the part of the opposite parties.

13.     In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case we find no merit in the present complaint as complainant fails to justify his claim. Accordingly, present complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.           

14.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.

15.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                          

      (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                 President  

Announced:                                               (B.S.Matharu)

Jan. 04, 2024                                                     Member

YP.