Punjab

StateCommission

FA/13/148

P.S.P.C. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pirthi Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswinder Singh Randhawa

02 Mar 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No. 148 of 2013

                                                           

                                    Date of institution: 12.2.2013  

                             Date of Decision:    2.3.2015

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its M.D., Chairman.
2. AEE/SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Commercial II, Sub Division, Bathinda, Distt. Bathinda.

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties

 

                                      Versus

 

Pirthi Singh S/o S. Ran Singh, R/o Village Multania, Distt. Bathinda.

…..Respondent/Complainant

 

First Appeal against the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellants            :         Sh. J.S. Randhawa, Advocate

          For the respondent :         Sh. Karamjit Singh, Advocate

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as “the OPs”) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.241          dated 21.5.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant(hereinafter referred as ‘the complainant’) was accepted with a direction to the Ops to cancel the demand notice of Rs. 72,176/- was raised from the complainant and issued a fresh demand notice raising a demand of Rs. 27,500/- only and also pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the OPs on the allegations that the complainant as a Senior Citizen and an agriculturist resident of Village Multania, owner in possession of 1.10 hectare agricultural land. Under the scheme of the Government of Punjab as Drip Sprinkler with the help of Central Government under which, the farmers were given various subsidies of 75%, who would adopt the scheme of Drip System, contacted the Agriculture Officer and Land Division Officer for adopting the scheme and drip system was got installed in the agricultural land. From the approved agency i.e. Malwa Irrigation and Farm Solution for a sum of Rs. 22,000/- and gave a serial No. 779 dated 21.12.2010. On the recommendations of Chief Agriculture Officer and Divisional Land Officer, complainant applied for 7.5 BHP tubewell connection to irrigate his land on 29.12.2010 vide application No. 44 for depositing a sum of Rs. 1500/-. As per the scheme, the Ops were duty bound to issue the demand notice within 30 days from the receipt of the application. However, to the utter surprise of the complainant that although a period of 1½ year had already elapsed but the Ops had not issued the demand notice. On the other hand, the farmers who had applied for the connection under the said scheme had already issued the demand notice and on the compliance of the same, the connections have been released to them and at that time they were asked to deposit just Rs. 27,000/-. The Ops had adopted a pick and choose method. The complainant visited time and again in the office of OP No. 2 and enquired about the matter and showed his willingness to deposit the amount demanded and showed his willingness to deposit Rs. 27,000/-, which have been deposited by the other farmers. However, unofficially the officials of the Ops asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000/-, which amounts to deficiency in services and it also caused mental tension, agony and loss of physical health to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- have been demanded on account of damages and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                The complaint was contested by the Ops. The introduction of the scheme, named, Drip Sprinkler by the Government of India has been admitted. It was admitted to the extent that the connection against the said scheme were released after getting Rs. 27,500/-. However, it was denied that any connection against Micro Drip System was released to the applicant, who applied after the complainant. It was denied that the Ops adopted the formula of pick and choose. There were two Sub Divisions, Sub Urban Sub Division and City Sub Division in the year 2011, both the Sub Divisions were merged into single Sub Division, namely, Commercial II. Due to merger for sometime, applications of different applicants could not be assessed, therefore, the demand notice was delayed due to re-organization. The estimate of the complainant was cleared by Op No. 2 vide memo No. 14973 dated 18.11.2011 on the basis of which demand notice was issued. Under the provisions of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, 2010, the service connection charges for the release of AP Tubewell Connection was fixed @ Rs. 3600/- per BHP. However, lateron it was decided that the application for new connection seeking out of turn release of connection/load demand will pay the actual cost of release of connection prescribed per BHP/KW/KVA service connection charges whichever is higher. As such, the complainant was advised to deposit the actual cost of line i.e. Rs. 72,136/-. Therefore, there was no merit in the complaint and it be dismissed.

4.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

5.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence estimate Exs. C-1 & 2, payment receipts Exs. C-3 & 4, letter Ex. C-5, payment receipt Ex. C-6, affidavit of Pirthi Singh Ex. C-7, affidavit of Hardyal Singh Ex. C-8, lists Exs. C-7A & 8A, order Ex. C-9, memo Ex. C-10, estimate EXs. C-11 to 13, demand notice Ex. C-14, Contractor report Exs. C-15 to 18, receipt challan Ex. C-19, application form Ex. C-20, certificate Ex. C-21, letters Exs. C-22 to 24, jamabandi Ex. C-25, affidavits Exs. C-26 & 27, photographs Exs. C-28 & 29, jamabandi Ex. C-30, memo Ex. C-31, estimate Exs. C-32 to 34, demand notice Ex. C-35, A&A form Ex. C-36, affidavit Ex. C-37, estimate EXs. C-38 & 39, jamabandi Ex. C-40, certificate Ex. C-41, affidavit Ex. C-42, letter Ex. C-43, photographs Exs. C-44 & 45. On the other hand, the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sahil Gupta Ex. R-1, service stamp register Ex. R-2, demand notice Exs. R-3 & 4, seniority list Ex. R-5.

6.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order observed that notification dated 24.5.2010 was conveyed to the Chairman/MD vide letter dated 14.2.2011 for implementation. Therefore, the applicants, who had applied for motor connection for Sprinkler System under priority basis with PSPCL after 14.2.2011 to deposit the charges according to aforesaid guidelines and accordingly, the complaint was allowed.

7.                In the appeal, it has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that the District Forum has failed to consider the facts of the case that the complainant was required to deposit the amount according to the actual cost i.e. Rs. 72,136/- whereas the deposit of Rs. 3600/- per BHP were revised vide notification dated 24.5.2010. The learned District Forum has wrongly interpreted the implementation of the said notification.

8.                According to the complaint, the complainant had applied for the Drip Sprinkler System vide application dated 29.12.2010 and as per the report given by SDO Soil Conservation Ex. C-5, it was properly working. Ex. C-7A is the seniority list of various applicants applied under that system. The demand notice issued to the complainant is Ex. C-31 of Rs. 72,176/-. The learned District Forum in its order has referred that the amendment in the notification were conveyed to the PSPCL after 14.2.2011 whereas the applicant has applied his connection vide application No. 44 dated 29.12.2010 before conveying of the said notification.

9.                However, we have gone through the file of the District Forum and the said notification has neither been placed on the record by the complainant nor by the Ops. Therefore, the counsel for the appellants was directed to place on the record the said notification, which has been placed on the record by the counsel for the appellant and accordingly, vide CC No. 28/2010 dated 18.6.2010, it was circulated to all the offices of the PSPCL that Commercial Circular No. 58/07 dated 15.10.2007 vide which the instructions were issued to enforce Regulations 2007 from 1.1.2008 PSERC were amended under notification dated 24.5.2010. The relevant clause No. 9.1.1(v) is reads as under:-

“9.1.1(v)     A connection/load/demand will ordinarily be released in the seniority to be determined as specified in the Conditions of Supply. However, the licensee may draw up a policy for out of turn release of connection/load/demand including the charges payable in such cases and seek the approval of the Commission thereto. An applicant seeking out of turn release of a connection/load/demand under this policy will be required to pay per BHP/KW/KVA charges or the actual expenditure (comprising of extending high voltage line, step down sub-station and cost of service line) incurred in providing the connection/load/demand whichever is higher.”

10.              Therefore, in case this notification was conveyed by the PSPCL to all its subordinate offices on 18.6.2010 then the findings of the District Forum that this was made effect w.e.f 14.2.2011 is not borne from the record. Therefore, in case the amended instructions were issued before the applicant applied for the connection under that system then he was required to pay the charges according to that.

11.              We do not find any deficiency in the services on the part of the Ops and demanding the charges according to the amended instructions. Without any evidence on the record, the learned District Forum has observed that the notification 24.5.2010 was intimated in the month of February, 2011, the findings so recorded by the learned District Forum has not been sustained and liable to be set-aside. The counsel for the respondent was unable to convince before this Commission and has not referred any document vide which the notification of May, 2010 was implemented with the appellants w.e.f. February, 2011.

12.              In view of the above, we accept the appeal. Impugned order is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is hereby dismissed.

13.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 25.2.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

14.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

March 2, 2015.                                                            (Jasbir Singh Gill)

as                                                                                                Member