Complainant Smt.Kavita has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to release her domestic electric connection immediately and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony alongwith litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she raised construction of her house and she has applied for getting domestic electric connection at her house in her name and she has completed all the formalities of the opposite parties and after completing all the formalities, she has deposited Rs.1370/- with the opposite parties on 5.2.2015 but the opposite parties have not released her electric connection inspite of completing all the formalities and inspite of her repeated visits and request. She has further pleaded that she has approached the opposite party no.4 and requested them to admit her claim and to release the domestic electric connection in her favour, but the opposite parties have refused to admit her claim. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as there are already two electric connections in the same premises. A bill worth Rs.21,000/- was outstanding against one of the connections since long. Also there is a dispute between the complainant and his mother in law. The later has filed a complaint in the office of the opposite party no.4 to the effect that there are already two connections in her house, so the third connection should not be installed and J.E. Raj Kumar, who is in charge of that area had gone to the premises where the complainant intends to get her connection installed, he was told by Smt.Pushpa wife of Sat Pal (mother in law of the complainant) that she is the owner of the house. There are already two connections in the house, therefore, the third connection should not be installed. Since there is a dispute regarding the ownership, the connection cannot be given. On merits, it was submitted that the concerned JE had gone to install the meter and release the supply but Smt.Pushpa Devi, who is the mother in law of the complainant had prevented the official of the Corporation from installing the meter stating that she is the owner of the house and also that two electric meters are already installed in her house. That is why the meter was not installed. There is no illegality on the acts or conduct of the officials of the Corporation. The meter cannot be installed in premises where there is a dispute regarding the ownership. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Smt.Kavita complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.
5. Sh.Harmanpreet Singh Gill, S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith other document Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; 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 purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. We observe that the freshly applied new Electric Domestic Connection has been refused/disallowed to the complainant for the first reason that only one electric connection is permissible in one premises and in the present case there are already two connections operating in the House with one connection with an arrears outstanding at Rs.21,000/- but neither the alleged connection’s account nos. nor the names of the holders stand disclosed by the OP service providers along with any other cogent evidence. Moreover, we find that the Rule # 3.3 x) b) of the Electricity Supply Instruction Manuals (Section II) Ed. 2010 allows the release of more than one connection in DS premises in case more than one (separate) kitchen is being maintained by the different members of the same family. Here, in the present case the complainant has constructed her separate House and living there separately with her husband and two sons and has duly submitted the separate Ration Card and ID cards etc and that entitles her to the applied for separate DS power electric connection. The other reason for non-release of ‘connection’ has been put forth by the OP Corporation as ‘objection’ duly taken by the complainant’s mother in law who alleges to own the property and also alleges ‘property dispute’ vides one hand written letter. The OP have failed to explain as to what prompted them to place ‘more’ reliance upon a poor & shabbily drafted letter than upon ‘affidavits’ and ‘authenticated documents’ duly submitted by the complainant along with her application duly accompanied with the prescribed fee Ex.C8. How the OP official could have deposed of ‘property dispute’ in his affidavit Ex.OP1, in the absence of any supporting evidence on record. We do not find any truthful substance in the OP pleadings in justification of its ‘refusal’ of ‘power connection’ to the complainant and thus hold its officials ‘guilty’ of deficiency in service.
8. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP service providers to release the applied for Power Connection to the complainant upon receipt of the copy of these orders besides to pay her Rs.5,000/- as compensation for having caused delay and harassment and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation failing which proceedings u/s 27 CPA shall be initiated against the opposite parties.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
July, 27 2015. Member
*MK*
