THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 42 of 2015

Date of Institution : 14.1.2015

Date of Decision : 14.8.2015

Dyal Singh S./o Sundar Singh R/o village Malawali, P.O. S.J.S. Avenue, Tehsil and District Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., South Division, Amritsar through SDO

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate

For the opposite party : Sh.Anil Sharma,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Dyal Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is consumer of Agriculture Electricity connection bearing No. J-157. According to the complainant the abovesaid tubewell connection was earlier disconnected by the opposite party and complainant had paid the requisite fee of Rs. 4044/- vide receipt dated 23.2.2007 for reconnection of the same . The said connection was reconnected and is still in operation and no bill is due towards the complainant. Complainant has alleged that sanctioned load of the tubewell connection was 5 HP and the complainant had applied for increase in load from 5 HP to 7.5 HP vide application dated 27.6.2014 under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme (VDS) . But the opposite party has not allowed the application for increase in load. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to extend the load of tubewell connection bearing No. J-157 as per rates of Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that present complaint is not maintainable as tubewell connection vide account No. J-157 was disconnected vide PDCO No. 36/60761 dated 13.5.2004. It was denied that complainant paid requisite fee i.e. Rs. 4044/- vide receipt dated 23.2.2007 for reconnection of the said connection. It was rather submitted that complainant only paid the pending amount against the electricity connection vide receipt dated 23.2.2007. It was submitted that according to rules and regulations of the PSPCL tubewell connection cannot be reconnected after six month of date of PDCO. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of payment receipt dated 23.2.2007 Ex.C-2, copy of letter dated 27.6.2014 Ex.C-3, copy of pass book Ex.C-4.

4. Opposite party tendered into evidence, affidavit of Sh.Narinder Pal ,SDO Ex.OP1, copy of receipt Ex.OP2, copy of pass book Ex.OP3, Copy of PDCO register Ex.OP4.

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant had tubewell connection bearing account No. J-157. The complainant submitted that said tubewell connection was earlier disconnected by PSEB. The complainant paid the requisite fee of Rs. 4044/- vide receipt No. 23.2.2007 Ex.C-2 for reconnection of the said electric connection and the same was reconnected by the opposite party and no bill is due towards the complainant regarding this connection. The complainant applied for increase in load from 5 HP to 7.5 HP of this tubewell connection vide application dated 27.6.2014 Ex.C-3 under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme (VDS). But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant on the ground that the record is not available. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that tubewell connection bearing account No. J-157 was disconnected vide PDCO No. 36/60761 dated 13.5.2004 as per copy of PDCO register Ex.OP4. Opposite party denied that the complainant paid fee of Rs. 4044/- vide receipt dated 23.2.2007 Ex.C-2 for reconnection of the abovestate tubewell connection rather the complainant paid the pending amount against the said electric connection. Further, tubewell connection cannot be reconnected after six months of date of PDCO. So the opposite party is not able to enhance the load of the electric connection of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that the record of this connection is also not available with the opposite party. He also submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant had tubewell connection bearing No. J-157 which was disconnected and the complainant applied for reconnection of the said tubewell connection by depositing requisite fee of Rs. 4044/- alongwith RCO form vide receipt dated 23.2.2007 Ex.C-2/Ex. OP2. On this receipt it has been categorically mentioned that this fee is for the reconnection of the tubewell connection of the complainant. Opposite party could not produce any record that the tubewell connection of the complainant was not reconnected. However , the complainant has deposed on oath that his tubewell connection is still working, after reconnection of the same by the opposite party. Whereas the opposite party has stated that the tubewell connection of the complainant is not working. However, the record of the opposite party regarding this tubewell connection is not traceable. If the record of the tubewell connection of the complainant is not traceable, then complainant cannot be held liable. Only opposite party is responsible for not maintaining the record of the tubewell connection of the complainant. So in these circumstances , the opposite party is directed to consider the case of the complainant for reconnection of the aforesaid tubewell connection if the same is not working at present then opposite party shall decide the reconnection request of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter complainant could apply for enhancement of the load of the aforesaid connection and the opposite party shall decide the same as per rules and regulations of the opposite party. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

9. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

14.08.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member