DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.195/18.11.2008 Decided on : 16.03.2009 Sh. Inder Singh S/o Sh. Mukand Singh, resident of Village Bhaini Bagha, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.The Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, (Sub Urban), Mansa. 2.The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.P.K.Sapolia, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.P.K.Singla, 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. Inder Singh son of Sh. Mukand Singh, a resident of Village Bhaini Bagha, against Punjab State Electricity Board, (in short called the 'board'), through its Sub Divisional Officer at Mansa and Chairman at Patiala, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), for giving direction to issue electric connection and award of compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment, on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: Contd.......2 : 2 : 2. That he has applied for the issuance of electric connection for agriculture purposes from the opposite parties and, deposited the amount of security as demanded, by them and after issuance of demand notice by the opposite parties upon him, he deposited Rs.15,840/- on 5.5.2005. Since the opposite parties have failed to issue electric connection in the name of the complainant, who is consumer under them, there is deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, is not the 'consumer' within the purview of its definition given in the Act, as such, complaint, is not maintainable; that complainant, has no cause of action, and locus standi, to file the complaint; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that his complaint, being false and vexatious, is liable, to be dismissed, with costs; that he has suppressed, the real facts, from the knowledge of this Forum; as such, he is not entitled to the relief, prayed for. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has applied for issuance of electric connection and the same would be released to him, as per seniority on the basis of amount deposited by him on 5.5.2005. It is submitted that the opposite parties, have proposed to issue the electric connection in the name of the complainant by 31.3.2009 as per the seniority list prepared by the board. It is contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, because electric connection has not been issued by them in the name of any other person violating the seniority list. Rest of the averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit, Exhibit C-1, copy of Jamabandi Ext.C-2 and and copy of receipt Exhibit C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the counsel for the opposite parties tendered in evidence Contd........3 : 3 : affidavit of Sh. Uttam Bansal, SDO Ext.OP-1 and closed evidence after tendering copy of seniority list Ext.OP-2. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the complainant Sh. P.K.Sapolia, Advocate, has submitted that the opposite parties were supposed to issue the electric connection within a period of 2 months after deposit of requisite amount by the complainant in respect of Demand notice served upon him, but they have failed to perform their part without any justifiable cause, as such, there is deficiency in service on their part and they are liable to pay compensation for physical and mental harassment suffered by the complainant and to issue the electric connection in the name of the complainant forthwith so that he is not deprived of irrigation facility in forthcoming paddy season. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh. P.K.Singla, Advocate, has submitted that so far electric connection has not been issued in the name of the complainant, as such, he cannot be termed as a consumer within the ambit of its definition given in the Act and complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint , which is not maintainable. 8. We do not find substance in the plea of the opposite parties, because the complainant has, admittedly, applied for issuance of electric connection and has deposited the substantial amount on the basis of demand notice served upon himby the opposite parties. As such, he is potential consumer of electric energy under them as envisaged in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, he has locus standi to file the complaint and complaint filed by him is maintainable. 9. Learned counsel has further argued that electric connection cannot be issued in the name of the complainant, because no person Contd........4 : 4 : violating the seniority list, has been issued the electric connection so far and issuance of the same depends upon the availability of equipment in the stores of the opposite parties, as such, complaint is liable to be dismissed. 10. We are not impressed by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, because vide Memo No.1003/1753 /SMI-26 dated 03.01.1997, the board has resorted to issue electric connection for agriculture purposes within a period of 2 months to the prospective consumers after service of demand notice. It is further envisaged in the above said memo that supply of electric connection within the period stipulated above, depends upon the availability of requisite material, but reason for delay shall be displayed on the notice board and intimation to the prospective consumer shall be given about the probable date by which electric connection would be released. It is further provided that where the connection cannot be released within the stipulated period, after compliance of the requisite formalities, in terms of the demand notice, then reason shall be brought to the notice of the Chief Engineer (Operation) concerned. Sub Clause 2 provides that above said period is maximum, but normally it may not be possible to give connection in much short time, as such, it shall be ensured that demand notices are carefully issued taking into consideration all the circumstances i.e. availability of funds, material and position of power. 11. As stated above, the complainant has complied with the demand notice and deposited the requisite amount on 5.5.2005 and complaint has been filed by him on 18.11.2008 i.e. after a considerable period. The opposite parties in their written version, has submitted that they have proposed to issue the electric connection by 31.3.2009 However, there is nothing on record showing that they displayed the reason for delay in issuance of electric connection on the notice board or they ever supplied intimation to the complainant before he filed the instant complaint. There is also no record suggesting that the opposite parties had brought the fact Contd........5 : 5 : to the notice of the the Chief Engineer (Operation) concerned. As per the above referred memo, issued by the board, they were under obligation to do so and to be careful while serving demand notice upon the complainant and accepting amount from him. As such, they are estopped from pleading that electric connection could not be issued to the complainant for want of material or due to power position in the State. Therefore, we cannot rely upon the uncorroborated affidavit of Sh.Uttam Bansal, SDO of the board tendered on behalf of the opposite parties, who after issuance of demand notice and receipt of money from the complainant in response thereof, was under obligation to release electric connection for his tubewell irrespective of seniority in the seniority list of prospective consumers in the category in which he has applied for. Moreover, the question of seniority and availability of equipment should have been considered by the opposite parties before service of demand notice upon the complainant. Since the complainant, has been deprived of his right for issuance of electric connection inspite of spending huge amount and of use of the said amount for considerable time, therefore, we have no option but to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which they are liable to suitably compensate him and he is entitled to issuance of electric connection before the on set of forthcoming paddy season. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to issue electric connection to the complainant positively by 30.4.2009, with further direction to pay him a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of compensation for physical and mental harassment within a period of two months from date of receipt of the copy of the order. 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: 16.03.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
