DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.84/23.06.2008 Decided on : 04.02.2009 Sh.Gamdoor Singh S/o Sh.Nachhatar Singh S/o Sh.Inder Singh resident of Ward No.9, Ballan Batti, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. 2.Senior Executive Engineer, Distribution Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties . Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S.K. Singla, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.S.K.Bansal, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Parties. Quorum: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President: This complaint has been filed, by Sh.Gamdoor Singh son of Sh.Nachhatar Singh, resident of Ward No.9, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, against Punjab State Electricity Board, (in short called the 'board'), through its Sub Divisional Officer posted at Bareta and Senior Executive Engineer, Budhlada, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: 2. That the complainant, has secured an electric connection bearing Account No. AMAP/2 for operation of tubewell installed in his Contd........2 : 2 : land situated in village Alampur, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur. The complainant, has been paying the bills, drawn upon him, by the board, as such, he is the consumer of electric energy, under the opposite parties. The complainant, moved an application, on 19.3.2008, to the board, for transfer of his electric connection, situated at village Alampur to his village Bareta and deposited a sum of Rs.35,821/-, on 8.4.2008. Thereafter he deposited a sum of Rs.22,000/-, on the asking of the opposite parties. The complainant, has completed all the requisite formalities for the purpose of shifting of electric connection, but no action, has been taken by the opposite parties, for a period of six months. Due to delay in shifting of electric connection by the board, the complainant, has suffered financial loss, although test report, has been submitted by him in compliance of the demand notice served by the opposite parties. The opposite parties, had been raising demand for depositing of extra amount, as such, the complainant deposited the same under compulsion, because he had no other alternative source of irrigation for his land. The opposite parties, have charged more amount for installation of poles at the place where electric connection, has been sought to be shifted by the complainant, whereas they have charged lesser amount for the same purpose, at previous place. The complainant, has to part with a sum of Rs.35,821/- and Rs.22,000/-, in view of the illegal demand raised by the opposite parties, against the instructions, on the subject. The complainant, has been subjected, to mental and physical harassment, on account of deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties, as such, he is entitled, to claim the excess amount, already deposited by him, for shifting of the electric connection from the opposite parties and a sum of Rs.20,000/-, on account of compensation, alongwith costs for filing the present complaint, in the sum of Rs.5,000/-. 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that there is no Contd........3 : 3 : delay, in shifting of the electric connection and there is no deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties; that the complainant, has no locus standi, to file the complaint, which has been filed by him with malafide intention, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs, in the sum of Rs.5000/-. On merits, it is admitted, that electric connection bearing Account No.AMAP/2, has been installed, in the name of the complainant and he is consumer of electric energy, under the opposite parties. It is also admitted, that electric connection, in question, has been shifted from village Alampur, District Sangrur to Bareta, District Mansa, on the application, filed by the complainant.. It is further admitted, that complainant, had filed an application dated 19.3.2008, for shifting of electric connection and had deposited a sum of Rs.35,821/-, on 8.4.2008 and subsequently, he deposited Rs.22,000/-, with the opposite parties for the said purpose. It is admitted that electric connection, was transferred after the complainant completed formalities, but it is specifically denied, that there was no negligence or delay on the part of the officials of the opposite parties, in shifting of the electric connection or that they have got deposited excess amount and complainant, has suffered financial loss, due to their conduct. It is submitted that the complainant, is not entitled to any amount, from the opposite parties, on account of refund, compensation or costs. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. On being called upon, by the Forum, to do so, the complainant, tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ext.C-8 and copies of documents Ext.C-1 to C-7. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties has closed the evidence stating that they do not want to produce evidence as the requisite copy of documents have already been tendered in evidence by the complainant himself. 5. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone Contd........4 : 4 : through, the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted, that no cogent justification, has been given by the opposite parties, for substantial delay in shifting of electric connection, as such, there is deficiency in service on their part. Learned counsel, has also argued, that site plan prepared by the officials of the board of the place where electric connection, has shifted does not depict the factual position of electric poles installed therein , as such, the complainant has to bear extra financial burden, because of which the opposite parties, have no option, but to refund the excess amount and to pay compensation and costs, as demanded, in the complaint, by the complainant. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh.Sunil Kumar Bansal, Advocate, has submitted that delay in shifting of electric connection, has taken place,in spot verification and exploring technical feasibility of place where electric connection has been shifted so that no financial loss is caused to the board and the consumer. Learned counsel, has further submitted that if amount, has been calculated on the lesser side against market value of the articles including electric poles, and error can always be rectified. Learned counsel, has argued that the complainant, has deposited the amount, without protest, and he has not filed any representation, before the opposite parties, showing his concern, for delay in shifting of the electric connection and, has not brought on record, any evidence, to show that he has suffered financial loss, on that score. The complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. Admittedly, electric connection got installed by the complainant for operation of his tube well for irrigation of his land in village Alampur, District Sangrur, has been got shifted by him to Bareta in District Mansa. As per admitted facts, the complainant filed an application Contd........5 : 5 : dated 19.3.2008 and deposited a sum of Rs.35,821/-, on 8.4.2008. In his complaint he has not disclosed the date when he deposited the amount of Rs.22,000/- subsequently at the asking of the opposite parties for the above said purpose. In case the less amount is received from a consumer for rendering of services due to error of calculation against actual price prevailing in the market, then department concerned, cannot be debarred from recovering the additional amount. The complainant, has not produced, on record any documentary evidence, to establish his plea, that rate of the electric poles at previous place were lesser than the rates of the electric poles installed at new place. It is a matter of common knowledge, that due to inflation in the market, the rates of goods go on increase day by day. Since the complainant, has got installed the electric poles in his land at Village Alampur much prior to the shifting of his electric connection to Bareta, therefore, increase in rates of electric poles and electrical gadgets was bound to occur with efflux of time . The rates charged for each article are mentioned, in the copy of list of article Ext.C-5, issued by the opposite parties but tendered in evidence by the complainant himself. The amount, has been correctly calculated in the said document, except the requisite correction made at the foot note on account of labour and departmental charges. The board is not a charitable institute. It has no option but to shift the financial burden of amount spent on account of labour and services rendered by its officials on the consumers. The total amount charged from the complainant, has also been mentioned correctly as per corrections made in this document Ext.C-5. The complainant, has not alleged any malafide on the part of the officials of the board, because of which his plea may be accepted that above said corrections have been made by them to cause him financial loss to achieve some ulterior motive. He has not produced on record any proof on the basis of which we may accept his plea, that extra financial burden, has been imposed on him by the board, in raising demand subsequently in the sum of Rs.22,000/-. Contd........6 : 6 : 9. The opposite parties have described the route of electric connection installed at Bareta in site plan Ext.C-4. The complainant, has not produced the site plan, which might have been prepared, by the opposite parties, or by their officials earlier. It is the duty of the employees of the board, employed on technical side to assess the technical feasibility of the place where electric connection, has to be given so that it does not adversely affect the interest of the board, the consumer or third party. The time is also required by the competent authority for processing of application for shifting of electric connection and spot inspection has to be carried out at the new place for the above said purpose. Moreover, the case of the complainant is that he had deposited , amount of Rs.35,821/- on 8.4.2008 for shifting of electric connection on the basis of his application dated 19.3.2008. He has not disclosed the date when he had deposited the subsequent amount of Rs.22,000/-, either in his application or in his affidavit tendered in evidence. The complainant, has not produced any document showing that he made any representation to the opposite parties or higher authorities showing his concern about the delay in shifting of his electric connection from village Alampur to village Bareta. He has not brought on record any evidence, to substantiate the allegations made by him, that he he had suffered any financial loss due to delay in shifting of electric connection. Since the electric connection, has been shifted from a distant place, therefore, time consumed for the said purpose, cannot be said to be excessive, from any stretch of imagination. In document Ext.C-1, electric connection has been shifted on 17.6.2008 on the basis of the application of the complainant dated 19.3.2008. As such, period of three months can be said to be ordinary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of the above, we have come to the conclusion, that there is no deficiency, in service on the part of the opposite parties and complainant is, neither entitled to any refund of the amount deposited by Contd........7 : 7 : him, nor payment of any compensation and costs, incurred by him for filing the instant complaint. 11. Resultantly, we dismiss the complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 12. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 04.02.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
