Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1231

Vaneet Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSEB - Opp.Party(s)

Ramdeep Partap Singh

18 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.1231 of 2011

 

                                                Date of Institution :  17.08.2011.

                             Date of Decision    : 18.02.2015.

 

Vaneet Kumar aged about 28 years son of Sh. Mohinder Pal, R/o Village Raimal Majri, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                          …..Appellant/complainant

Versus

 

1.      Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Head Office, The      Mall, Patiala through its Chairman Cum Managing Director.

2.      S.D.O. Operation Sub Division Punjab State Power         Corporation Limited, Bhadson, District Patiala.

                                                     ….Respondents/opposite parties

    

Appeal against order dated 30.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.

 

Quorum:-

 

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.     

Present:-

 

     For the appellant                   :     None.

For the respondents    :     Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate

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

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                 

                    The appellant (complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents herein (opposite parties in the complaint) challenging order dated 30.06.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Patiala (in short, “the District Forum”), vide which, the complaint of the complainant/appellant was dismissed. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant.

2.           The complainant Vaneet Kumar has filed the complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the allegations that he has an electricity connection bearing account no.K62B5510077Y, recorded in the name of his father Mohinder Pal, who died on 09.04.2008. The complainant has been using the electricity supply of above connection after the death of his father and has been depositing the consumption charges therefor. The complainant is a small shopkeeper and is an unemployed person and uses his Photostat machine by means of self employment. That OPs used to check the meter load of the complainant regularly. That the sanction load installed at the premises of complainant was 1.00 KW. That air condition was required for smooth running of the Photostat machine, installed by the complainant. The complainant moved an application to OPs for enhancement of its sanction load from 1.00 KW to 5.00 KW and requested them to permit him to pay fee for the enhanced load. That as per the instructions of the Punjab Government, there was no need to obtain no objection certificate from Municipal Corporation or any other authority. That despite readiness of the complainant, the OPs have not enhanced the load from 1.00 KW to 5.00 KW. The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs directing them to enhance the load from 1.00 KW to 5.00 KW after charging the requisite fee therefor. The complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss and mental harassment and Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation to him.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written reply through Er. Ravi Verma raising preliminary objections, that complainant is not a consumer of the OPs. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant concealing the fact that he is not the owner of the premises in question. Writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble High Court with regard to the premises in dispute. The complainant has been using the electricity connection for commercial purposes to earn profit therefrom. On merits, complaint was resisted by the OPs on the ground that the electricity connection is in the name of Mohinder Pal and not in the name of the complainant. The complainant took no approval from the OPs to use the electricity connection by him. The Add. S.E./enforcement Khanna checked the above connection of the complainant on 25.06.2010 in the presence of complainant and found the unauthorized load of 3.300 KW against the sanctioned load of 1.00 KW in the above connection. The enforcement officer gave the checking report recording the detail of the load on the site. The checking was made in the presence of complainant and the checking report was duly signed by him as well. OPs raised the demand of Rs.2250/-, vide memo no.512 dated 28.07.2010 against the complainant under rules. The criteria of raising the demand is specified in "Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007". It is further pleaded by OPs that any person, who intends to get his load extended, it is required from him to take the necessary permission from the PUDA. No such certificate has been taken by the complainant. That complainant has neither submitted any A&A form nor deposited the charges, nor took any specific permission in this regard. The OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4.           The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit
   Ex.C-1 along with documents Ex.C-2 to C-4 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavits Ex. R-1 & R-2 along with documents Ex.R-3 to R-6 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Patiala dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 30.06.2011 under challenge in this case. Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum Patiala, the instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs in this appeal, as none appeared for the complainant now appellant in this case. We have examined the record of the case, it is not disputed that the electricity connection no.K62B5510077Y is in the name of Mohinder Pal, carrying sanctioned load of 1.00 KW. The complainant runs Photostat machine in it. It is also a proved fact that the premises in question was checked by the enforcement staff of the Power Corporation and they found that the running load in the premises of the complainant was 3.300 KW instead of sanctioned load of 1.00 KW. On this point, affidavit of Er. Ravi Verma S.D.O./operation, PSPCL, Operation Sub Division, Bhadson is on the record. He has stated in his affidavit, coupled with the enforcement checking report Ex.R-4 that it was found that running load was more than the sanctioned load of the complainant. In addition to that, the premises of the complainant falls within the area of schedule road of PUDA, then enhancement in the load could not be permitted without the necessary permission from the authorities of PUDA, as per the version of the OPs in this case. The father of the complainant died on 09.04.2008 and complainant has been using it without getting approval from Power Corporation. He has been getting the benefit of the services of the OPs by making payment. The complainant has not complied with the direction, vide memo no.512 dated 28.07.2010 Ex.R-3 directing him to remove the extra load and submitted its test report in the office of OP No.2 in this regard. The load could not be extended without necessary permission of PUDA. No objection certificate from PUDA authorities is necessary because the premises fall within the area of schedule road of PUDA. We are one with the findings of the District Forum in this appeal. The findings of the District Forum are neither perverse nor illegal, nor suffer from any material irregularity. The order of the District Forum Patiala under challenge in this case is hereby affirmed because the load cannot be enhanced without essential certificate of PUDA in this regard.
6.           As a result of our above discussions, we hereby dismiss the appeal of the appellant.
7.           Arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.        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

 

February  18, 2015.                                                            

(MM)