Complaint No: 173 of 2023.
Date of Institution: 04.10.2023.
Date of order: 20.03.2024.
Veena Rani Widow of Satpal, resident of 73, Backside Bus Stand, Gurdaspur Tehsil and District Gurdaspur – 143521.
.....Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala. Pin Code – 147001.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Additional Superintending Engineer, Jail Road, Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143521.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Sub Urban Gurdaspur, through its Assistant Executive Engineer. Pin Code – 143521.
.....Opposite parties.
Complaint u/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Krishan Malhi, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
Veena Rani, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (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 earlier the husband of the complainant namely Satpal was owner in possession of a house situated at Near Khalsa School, Backside Bus Stand, Gurdaspur Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. It was pleaded that the complainant alongwith her family is residing in the above said house, but unfortunately the husband of the complainant died on dated 15.12.2022. As such after his death, the complainant being widow of the deceased Satpal stepped into the shoe of her late husband and became owner in possession of the house detailed above. It was further pleaded that the complainant for the purpose of domestic needs has applied for installation of a new electricity connection with the opposite parties and has duly filed all the relevant requisite forms and has also paid the requisite amount as security deposit etc. as per the norms and guidelines of the PSPCL Department. It was further pleaded that after completion of all the formalities by the complainant and upon receipt of such documents and payment of the amount, the opposite parties has also issued a receipt having receipt No. 213800397012 dated 06.04.2023 in favour of the complainant amounting to Rs.6,010/- and the opposite parties has also issued the Account No. 3008376995 to the complainant. It was further pleaded that despite of payment of the amount by the complainant and completion of formalities, the opposite parties has not performed their duties with due diligence and had not installed the electricity connection at the residential address of the complainant till date. It was further pleaded that the complainant again went to the office of the opposite parties and requested them to install the electricity connection in the house of the complainant, but the opposite parties did not paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and a huge time span of about 6 months have been elapsed, but the complainant despite of taking the amount has not installed the electricity meter yet. It was further pleaded that the electricity has become a basic necessity of life as without electricity, it is highly impossible for a family to survive. Even for the basic needs like water, light etc. are also sourced through the electricity, but due to high - headedness of the opposite parties the complainant is suffering a lot, she is using inverter - batteries and generator in order to survive and is paying a huge amount due to this negligent act on the part of the opposite parties. Thus there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1,50,000/- at the hands of the opposite parties for the physical harassment and mental agony. 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 install the electricity connection at the residential address of the complainant at the earliest and the complainant may be awarded the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.30,000/- as a cost of litigation 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 by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It was pleaded that the complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and is not entitled for any relief from this Ld. Commission and the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Commission. It was further pleaded that the matter of the fact is that there are already two electricity connections installed in the same premises having Account No. MF42/400 and 3008358502. The complainant intentionally concealed this fact in the present complaint. Even as per the electricity supply instructions manual 2018, the rule 3.3.8 clearly provides that one connection in one premises and 3.3.8(b) provides that the applicant shall give undertaking that no connection exist in the premises for which the connection is applied. However, domestic supply consumer may get more than one connection in the same premises where the family member’s occupants living in the house have separate cooking arrangements. It was further pleaded that in the present case, two electricity meter connections has already been installed and it has not been mentioned that why the third electricity connection required. The J.E. duly inspected the premises and submitted the report that two meters are already in existence in the house. As per his report there are two separate portion in the house of the complainant and both the portion has separate electricity connection and as such there is no need of third electricity connection. It was further pleaded that due to which the complainant is not entitled for any third electricity meter and third electricity meter cannot be allotted. It is a clear cut misuse of the process of law and the person who has not come to the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and concealed the material facts is not entitled for any relief. The equity does not lie in favour of such a person who has not come to the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and pollutes the judicial system. It was further pleaded that in the present case, the complainant has not disclosed that the two electricity connections are already running in the premises and this fact is material one and even the electricity supply manual does not provide regarding it. Even no affidavit has been submitted by the complainant to show her requirement of third electricity meter in the same premises. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties and the present complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and 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 placed on file affidavit of Veena Rani, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 alongwith complaint.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed on file affidavit of Sh. Bhupinder Singh Kaler, (S.D.O, P.S.P.C. Ltd, Sub – Division Sub Urban, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1to3/1 to Ex.OP-1to3/2 alongwith reply.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments not 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 present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get her electric connection released from opposite parties as she has deposited Rs.6010/- vide receipt placed at Ex.C1. It has been alleged by the complainant that after the death of her husband she had applied for the new electric domestic connection but the same has not been released by the opposite parties.
10. Opposite parties in their written statement denied all allegations and stated that after the deposit of the security of Rs.6010/- by the complainant the premises of the complainant was inspected by the officials of the opposite parties and it was found that there are already two numbers electric connection running on the same premises bearing A/c No.MF-42/400 and A/c No.3008358502. Opposite parties have placed on record the copy of the site report as Ex.OP-1 to 3/1. Opposite parties have placed on the record copy of instruction No.3.3.8 (b) of ESIM-2018 as Ex.OP-1 to 3/2 which read as under:-
"The applicant shall gave an undertaking that no connection exists in the premises for which connection is applied. However, domestic supply consumer may get more than on domestic supply connection in the same premises where family members/occupants living in house have separate cooking arrangements".
It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the opposite parties that there is no separate kitchen/cooking arrangement found in the portion of premises where the new connection is applied other than already two connections in the same premises. Hence, the released of the third connection was denied to the complainant as per above referred instructions of the department. .
11. Perusal of the record of the case file shows that the complainant has not submitted any cogent evidence proving that there is a separate kitchen/cooking arrangement in the portion of the house for which the third connection has been applied. Further more the complainant has concealed the fact in the complaint regarding already existing two electric connections in the same premises. So, in view of the said rule of the department of opposite parties as referred in instruction No.3.3.8 (b) of ESIM-2018 which is placed at Ex.OP-1 to 3/2, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has failed to prove her claim as referred in the complaint.
12. Accordingly, the present complaint being without merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
March 20, 2024 Member
*YP*
