DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.C.No.52 of 22.02.2007<br /> Decided on : 17.04.2007 <br /> <br /> 1.Chand Singh S/o Sh. Kunda Singh;<br /> 2.Surjeet Singh S/o Sh. Gurnam Singh, both residents of Village Lehra Dhurkot, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainants<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.SDO/A.E.E, Punjab State Elecy. Board, City Sub Division, Rampura Phul, 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. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainants seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to split electricity connection No. LD-190/AP into two of 7.5 BHP and 5 BHP in their names respectively; pay them Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, botheration and sufferings, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainants lies in t he narrow compass as under:-<br /> 3. Electricity connection bearing A/c No. LD-190/AP is in the name of complainant No.1. Previously its sanctioned load was 7.5 BHP. Later-on it was got enhanced to 12.5 BHP by way of depositing RS.16,000/- vide receipt No.254 dated 30.6.2004. As per scheme of the PSEB (Here-in-after referred to as the Board), complainant No.2 deposited Rs.1,000/- vide receipt No. 350 dated 14.7.2004, Book No. 74440 as fee for splitting the connection into two i.e. 7.5 BHP and 5 BHP in their names. They own considerable land which was orally partitioned by them. They are in possession of their respective shares. Partition has been given effect to by Revenue Authorities by way of sanctioning mutation No.6048 in their favour. There is no dispute between them regarding the genuineness of the oral family partition. As per Sales Regulation No. 13.6.10 to 13.6.11 connection can be split into two. Splitting of connections already running on Urban/City Feeders was allowed at par with rural feeder consumers. Condition regarding qualifying period of three years is not applicable in their case as they applied for splitting the connection on 14.7.2004. Previously, opposite parties have granted permission to Nagar Singh of village Lehra Mohhabbat for splitting 15 BHP connection into three vide Memo No. 54101 of 21.8.2004. Similar permission was granted to Gurbaksh Singh of village Lehra Dhurkot who was having connection No. D-205. His connection was split into connections No. 219 and 240 in the names of his sons. In their case, opposite parties are not splitting the connection into two. Hence, there is deficiency in service due to which they are suffering great mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment. They are also incurring losses.<br /> 4. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainants do not have any cause of action to file it; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complaint is false and frivolous and complainants are not consumers. Inter-alia, their plea is that splitting of electricity connection to different heirs is governed by Sales Regulations No. 13.6.10 to 13.6.11, Commercial Circulars No. 38/2003 and 17/2005. As per regulations and commercial circulars, connection can be split into two and not more to the legal heirs subject to their completing the requisite formalities. It is specifically mentioned that in case load of the connection required to be got split has been got extended under Voluntarily Disclosure Scheme (Here-in-after referred to as VDS), it is only after three years that the same can be split up and that too, from a rural feeder, whereas the case of the complainants fall under the Urban Feeder. After receiving application from the complainants and few others, a clarification was sought from the Head Office. It has been explained vide Commercial Circular No. 17/2005 that splitting of the connection even from the Urban Feeder is permissible subject to the condition that such connections are getting metered supply and existing tubewell connection load was 10 BHP and above at the time of release of the original connection. Clause of three years with regard to load extended under VDS has also been explained. Complainants have failed to complete the requisite formalities and to produce requisite documents i.e. record pertaining to ownership of land and mutation etc. Since the load has been got extended under VDS and as such, splitting is not possible before three years. Complainants are trying to abuse the process of law as they first got the load increased and thereafter, they are trying to take the shelter of alleged family partition. They want to make two motor connections under VDS. Moreover, they are not getting metered supply. Cases of Nagar Singh and Gurbaksh Singh were different than that of the case of the complainants. They admit that electricity connection No. LD-190/AP is in the name of complainant No.1. Its sanctioned load was 7.5 BHP. Later-on, it has been got enhanced to 12.5 BHP by way of depositing RS.16,000/- on 30.6.2004. Complainant No. 2 had applied for splitting the connection into two of 7.5 BHP and 5 BHP and had deposited Rs.1,000/-. They deny oral partition and sanctioning of mutation No. 6048 for want of knowledge. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 5. In support of their allegations and averments in the complaint, complainants have tendered into evidence affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2) of Surjit Singh, complainant No.2, photocopies of receipts dated 14.7.2004 & 30.6.2004 (Ex.C.3 & Ex.C.4), photocopy of Passbook (Ex.C.5), photocopies of Jamabandies (Ex.C.6 to Ex.C.8), photocopy of order dated 27.11.2006 (Ex.C.9) & copies of Jamabandies for the year 2004-05 (Ex.C.10 & Ex.C.11).<br /> 6. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Bhagwant Singh, SDO.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 8. Some facts are undisputed in this case. They are that electricity connection No. LD-190/AP is standing in the name of Chand Singh complainant. Previously, its sanctioned load was 7.5 BHP. Subsequently, it has been got enhanced to 12.5 BHP under VDS by complainant No.1 by way of depositing Rs.16,000/- vide receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.4. Copy of the Passbook is Ex.C.5. Complainant No.2 deposited Rs.1,000/- on 14.7.2004 vide receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.3, with the opposite parties for splitting the connection on the basis of the family partition. Connection has not been split into two.<br /> 9. One of the pleas taken by the opposite parties is that complainant did not complete the requisite formalities as they did not produce the record of ownership of land and mutation. It is worth mentioning that there is no document to establish it except the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Bhagwant Singh, SDO. Opposite parties have not produced any letter revealing that documents regarding ownership and mutation were demanded. In para No. 4 of the complaint, complainants have specifically pleaded that affidavits and other relevant documents have already been furnished to the opposite parties which are in their possession. Opposite parties are not denying this fact in clear terms. Regarding reply to para No.4 of the complaint, there is denial for want of knowledge. Surjit Singh complainant in his affidavits Ex.C1 & Ex.C.2 has reiterated his version in the complaint. Complainants have also brought on record copy (Ex.C.6) of mutation No. 6048 regarding partition of the land on the basis of the family partition. Partition has been given effect to as is evident from the copies of the Jamabandies for the years 2004-05 of village Lehra Dhurkot, copies of which are Ex.C.10 & Ex.C.11. Hence, there remains no dispute regarding family partition and ownership of the land and as such, the objection of the opposite parties on this aspect stands repelled. <br /> 10. Principal argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that complainant No.1 in whose name is electricity connection is not getting metered supply and before three years after the date of extension of the load under VDS, splitting of connection into two is not permissible. For this, reliance is placed on the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Bhagwant Singh, SDO.<br /> 11. Learned counsel for the complainants argued that Commercial Circular No. 17/2005 is not applicable as complainant No. 2 had applied for splitting the connection when this circular was not in force.<br /> 12. We have considered respective arguments. Material question for determination is as to whether Commercial Circular No. 17/2005 is applicable in the case in hand. This circular is dated 10.3.2005. According to it, splitting of tubewell connections already running on Urban/City Feeders is allowed at par with Rural Feeder consumers as per prevalent Commercial Circular No. 38/2003 subject to the condition that such connections are getting metered supply. Application for splitting the connection in this case was moved on 14.7.2004 i.e. much prior to 10.3.2005. Learned counsel for the opposite parties failed to establish that condition of getting metered supply and clause of three years with regard to load extended under VDS were existing before 10.3.2005. Commercial Circular No. 38/2003 was applicable when application for splitting the connection on the basis of the family partition was moved in this case on 14.7.2004. When the complainants applied for getting the connection split into two, there was no condition of metered supply and clause of three years with regard to load extended under VDS. They came into force on 10.3.2005. There is nothing in Commercial Circular No. 17/2005 that it would have retrospective operation. In such a situation, it will apply prospectively to the persons who applied on 10.3.2005 or thereafter. Hence, we are of the view that conditions under which complainants are being denied the relief being prayed for by them are not applicable in their case. Since, opposite parties are not splitting the connection in the genuine case of the complainants after getting deposited the requisite fee, there is deficiency in service on their part in rendering service to them. <br /> 13. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainants. As per our aforesaid discussion, they are certainly entitled for getting the connection split up. Facts and circumstances show that they have undergone mental tension and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties for which they deserve some compensation which we assess as Rs.1,000/-. For this, we are fortified by the observations of Hon'ble State Commission of Madhya Pradesh in the case of J. Radhakrishnan Vs. A Basheera & another-2001(2)CLT-225 (MP) 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 /> 14. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 15. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under:-<br /> ( i ) Split electricity connection No. LD-190/AP into two of 7.5 BHP in the name of Chand Singh complainant No.1 and of 5 BHP in the name of Surjeet Singh complainant No.2 within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after getting deposited any amount, if so warranted under rules/law.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance regarding payment of compensation and costs be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 16. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 17.04.2007 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 /> <br /> <br /> <br />