Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/674

Rakesh Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSEB - Opp.Party(s)

Inderjit Sharma

07 Apr 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.674 of 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 20.04.2011

                                                          Date of Decision:  07.04.2015

 

 

Rakesh Mittal son of Sh. Roshal Lal son of Shri Balmukand Mittal, Resident of H.No. 75, Model Town Bathinda.

 

                                                                   …Appellant/Complainant.

 

                                      Versus

 

1        Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala through its       MD/CMD/Chairman.

2.       SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division        Goniana.

                                                          …..Respondent/Opposite Parties

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 10.02.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

Present:-

 

          For the appellant              :         Sh.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate.

          For the respondent          :         Sh. Vishal Chaudhari, Advocate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant (the complainant in the complaint) has filed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the  opposite parties in the complaint), challenging  order dated 10.02.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Bathinda, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant, now appellant against respondents (OPs.).

2.      The complainant Rakesh Mittal has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that complainant was having electric connection No.B13BM 560317 in his shop No.2029 in the name of the Kewal Krishan owner and was making regular payment of the consumption charges. The father of the complainant became suddenly ill and complainant could not open the shop and OP No.2 disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant , in the meantime for non-payment of the charges. The complainant paid the amount and applied for a new connection by filing A & A Form and the required documents, as per the demand of the OP No.2. The complainant further paid Rs. 1590/- as fee for getting the new connection, vide receipt no.285 dated 12.07.2009. The OPs assured the complainant with regard to the new connection within 7 days. The Ops have neither released the electricity connection nor attended the grievances of the complainant. The complainant suffered an immense loss of his business and compensation of Rs.80,000/- due to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant paid Rs.1590/- for getting connection, when he applied for the new connection and gave A & A Form including the complete file, as required by the OPs. The complainant has accordingly filed the complaint directing the OPs to release the new connection of the complainant at shop No.2029 and to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- besides costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply raising legal objections and complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It was further averred that electricity connection No.B13BM560317 was installed in shop No.2029 in the name of Sh. Kewal Krishan. Defaulting amount of Rs.2114/- regarding consumption of electricity charges was due for non-payment of the said amount. The OPs issued permanent disconnection order (PDCO) on 26.03.2009 and the OPs disconnected the electricity supply of the said connection on 27.03.2009 and report was prepared on the same day on 27.03.2009 by Sh. Surinder Singla J.E that shop was found opened and meter was removed. As per rules of the PSPCL, once connection was permanently disconnected, then the connection is to be reinstalled within one year by the original consumer and thereafter new security has to be deposited by the original owner or any tenant by producing proof of tenancy. The complainant paid the amount and applied new connection by depositing Rs.1590/- as security on 12.07.2010. The official of the OPs went to install a new connection, but at the time of installing, the new meter, one Sunil Gupta raised objection that shop where the officials wanted to install the new connection is a disputed one and Sunil Gupta produced some documents of ownership. As such, the complainant is not a tenant of the said shop and hence connection could not be installed. The complaint was also resisted even on merits on the above-referred grounds by the OPs. The OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that they went to install the electricity connection of the ownership, but one Sunil Gupta produced some documents of his ownership disputing status of the complainant as a tenant and hence no electricity connection could be installed therein and hence prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of  Sh.Rakesh Mittal Ex.C-1, copy of receipt of payment Ex.C-2, additional affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Mittal Ex.C-3, photocopies of refund order Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, copy of counter folio Ex.C-6 and copy of passbook Ex.C-7.   As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Ramesh Kumar, SDO , AEE of OPs Ex.R-1, affidavit of Surinder Singla, JE of OPs, Ex.R-2, copy of memo no.751 dated 03.09.2010 Ex.R-3, copy of application form Ex.R-4, copy of voter card of Rakesh Mittal Ex.R-5, copy of notice dated 05.08.2010 Ex.R-6, copies of letters Ex.R-7 and Ex.R-8. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Bathinda, dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of the order dated 10.02.2011. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, Bathinda. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.     

6.      We advert to evidence on the record to adjudicate the controversy between the parties in this case. The pleadings of both sides have been duly considered by us on the record. Affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Mittal, Complainant Ex.C-1 is on the record, Ex.C-2 is copy of receipt No.285 regarding the deposit of amount of Rs.1590/- by the complainant on 12.07.2010 with the OPs. Additional affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Mittal Complainant is Ex.C-3 is on the record. Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 are the copies of the Tax Refund Order. Ex.C-6 is the document issued by the Oswal Chemical & Fertilizer Ltd to the complainant, Ex.C-7 is the statement of account of the complainant. To rebut it, OPs relied upon the affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Kumar SDO , AEE of the OPs, Ex.R-2 is affidavit of Sh. Surinder Singla, JE of the OPs and Ex.R-3 is letter dated 02.07.2010 addressed to the complainant intimating him that the meter could not be installed, Ex.R-4 is application for the installation of the meter, submitted by the complainant, Ex.R-5 is voter card of the complainant, Ex.R-6 is notice issued to the SDO of the OPs regarding non-sanctioning of the electricity connection in the name of Sh. Rakesh Mittal on the ground that there is legal dispute regarding the non-payment of the rent and hence electricity connection be not installed, Ex.R-7 is the letter of Sh. Surinder Gupta to SDO Bathinda not to install the connection without the written consent of Sunil Gupta.

7.      From appraisal of the above-referred evidence on the record, we proceed to settle the controversy in this case. We find that the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected previously by the OPs for non-payment of the electricity consumption dues. The shop of the complainant remained closed and hence electricity connection was disconnected by OP No.2 on that ground. The complainant applied for new connection by filing the A & A Form with the required documents, as per demand of the OP No.2. The complainant again deposited Rs.1590/- fee for getting the new connection, vide receipt no.285 dated 12.07.2009. The OPs were prepared to install the electricity connection in the premises of the complainant, but on account of objection raised by Sh. Sunil Gupta, they balked at it. We have duly examined the evidence on the record. The complainant applied for new connection and also deposited the amount of Rs.1590/-, vide receipt Ex.C-2 on 12.07.2010 with the OPs. The complainant submitted that he received the refund voucher at the address, where the electricity connection was installed, vide Ex.C-4, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 on the record. The OPs are refrained from installation of electricity connection on account of objection raised by Sh. Sunil Gupta as per his application Ex.R-7 and Ex.R-8 are on the record. Sh. Sunil Gupta stated that complainant is not owner and there is a dispute of tenant between the parties and hence electricity connection be not installed. Reference was made to Regulation No.7, which is application for supply of the electricity. It lays down that owner or occupier of a premises requiring supply or additional supply of electricity will submit an application along with requisite initial security to the board. Regulation No.7.3 further lays down that applicant will submit proof of ownership/occupation of the premises for which the connection is applied. If the applicant is a tenant or a leaseholder and is unable to produce the consent of the owner/land lord for obtaining a connection, a separate Indemnity bond will be executed in favour of the Board. The matter is now pellucid clear  from Regulation 7..3 as placed on record, which makes it clear that where owner has not given the consent for installation of the electricity connection to the tenant, the indemnity bond will be executed on the A & A Form itself where the load is up to 100 KW when the applicant is a tenant or a leaseholder and is unable to produce the consent of the owner/land lord for obtaining a connection, a separate indemnity bond will be executed. The District Forum failed to appreciate this controversy in this case in the light of above provision and hence committed an error in coming to contrary conclusion on the record. The order passed by the District Forum is, thus, unsustainable and cannot be maintained in this appeal.

8.      As a result of our above discussion, we order that the OPs would install the electricity connection in the premises in dispute of the complainant after taking an indemnity bond from the complainant in case he is the tenant and landlord is not agreeing to give the consent for obtaining the connection, and the requisite indemnity bond will be submitted by the complainant to the OPs, as per Regulation 7.3 (supra). The order of the District Forum, is thus, reversed in this appeal filed by the appellant and appeal is accepted by directing the OPs to release the electricity connection in the premises of the complainant and complainant is directed to furnish the indemnity bond as per Regulation 7.3 in this case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, for non-compliance thereof for installation of the connection, the OP shall pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

9.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 30.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

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

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                    (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

April  7  2015.                                                                

(ravi)