| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No.448-14 Date of Institution:20-08-2014 Date of Decision:20-02-2015 Mr.Kartar Singh son of Sh.Ganga Singh, resident of House No. 36, Gali No.2, Hussainpura West, Amritsar. Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala service through AEE, Mall Mandi Sub Division, Hall Gate, Amritsar. Opposite Party Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date). Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: Sh.Anil Sharma, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Kartar Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he applied for removal of the pole of LT line and shifting of stay from the front of his plot with Opposite Party by paying the requisite fee of Rs.13072/- vide receipt Nos..D-34482 and 25767 because said pole/stay blocks the entry of the plot of the complainant, though the same was wrongly erected by the Opposite Party which created hurdles in laying the sewer line and entry to the said purposed house of the complainant. The complainant made persistent representations to the Opposite Party for the shifting of the said electricity pole stay, but the Opposite Party did not hear to the genuine demand and representations of the complainant who is even otherwise a senior citizen and is in twilight of his life. Ultimately, the Opposite Party vide their letter dated 14.11.2013 demanded Rs. 13072/- from the complainant or the shifting of the pole/ stay which the complainant promptly paid though he is not entitled to pay, but only for the purpose of his inconvenience and harassment paid the said amount, but to the utmost shock to the complainant and his family that the said pole/stay has not been shifted till the filing of the present complaint. The complainant is running from pillar to post and making representations to the Opposite Party, but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to shift the electricity pole/ stay and to refund the amount of Rs. 13072/- paid by the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant moved an application to the Opposite Party and after that an estimate was prepared by the Opposite Party and according to the rules and regulations of the Opposite Party, the complainant has to deposit estimate fee of Rs. 13072/- which was deposited by the complainant and after that the said electrical pole/ stay was removed from the front of the plot of the complainant on 24.7.2014. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Darbari Lal, AEE Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- 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 both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant Kartar Singh applied for removal of the pole of LT line and shifting of stay from the front of his plot, to the Opposite Party and deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 13072/- with the Opposite Party vide receipt dated 7.10.2013 Ex.C3 and receipt dated 26.11.2013 Ex.C3, but the Opposite Party has not shifted the pole/ stay from the front of his plot inspite of repeated requests and representations. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the Opposite Party was not even entitled to charge the amount of the shifting of the pole/ stay from the front of the plot of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant moved an application to the Opposite Party for the removal of the pole/ stay from the front of his plot and after that estimate was prepared by the Opposite Party and according to the rule and regulations of the Opposite Party, the complainant was asked to deposit the estimate fee of Rs. 13072/-. After that the said electrical pole/ stay was removed from the front of the plot of the complainant on 24.7.2014 as per the record of the Opposite Party Ex.OP3. All this shows that the Opposite Party has done its duty. The charges for the shifting of pole/ stay from the front of the plot of the complainant has been obtained by the Opposite Party as per rule 40 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual of the Opposite Party. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there was pole/ stay of LT line in front of the plot of the complainant. The complainant applied for the removal of the pole and shifting of stay from the front of his plot, to the Opposite Party. Resultantly, the Opposite Party prepared the estimate for the shifting of the pole/ stay from the front of the plot of the complainant as is evident from the record produced by the Opposite Party Ex.OP3 and requisite material was taken from the store as per record Ex.OP4, Ex.OP5, Ex.OP6 and the complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 13072/- with the Opposite Party. Consequently, the complainant deposited Rs.500/- vide receipt dated 7.10.2013 Ex.C3 and Rs. 12572/- vide receipt dated 26.11.2013 Ex.C3 with the Opposite Party. All this fully proves that the complainant completed his job on 26.11.2013 by depositing the amount as required by the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not shift the pole/ stay from the front of the plot of the complainant and ultimately, they did their job i.e. shifting of pole/ stay from the front of the plot of the complainant on 24.7.2014 as is evident from the record of the Opposite Party Ex.OP3 i.e. after lapse of period of about 8 months. This job should have been done by the Opposite Party within a month or so. Resultantly, we hold that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency of service by doing their job so late and as such, the complainant could not do construction work and other work of his plot for about 8 months.
- As regard charging of the amount for the shifting of the pole/ stay from the complainant by the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party was justified as per rule 40.4 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual of the Opposite Party. Opposite Party was justified in charging the amount for shifting of any pole/ stay from the front of the house of consumer/ customer on payment of charge as the Opposite Party has to put on job the labour and material for the shifting of the pole/stay and adjust the same to some other place. The ruling cited by complainant, laid down by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors. Vs. Shastri Nagar, Kanchghar Sudhar Sabha reported in 2011(2) CPC page 446 is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because in that case high tension wires were crossing over the houses of the residents of the colony which were dangerous to the life of the residents of that locality and the residents of the colony requested the Haryana Electricity Nigam to remove high tension wire passing over their houses and that was a case of public nuisance as well as dangerous to the life of the residents of locality. So, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi stated that in a such case, the electricity board/ Nigam is not entitled to demand the amount spent on the removal of the high tension wires passing over the houses of the residents of the colony. Here in this case, it was a case of removal/ shifting of pole/ stay from the front of the plot of the complainant i.e. a case of private individual person and that too, was not in the interest of general public, but in the interest of private individual.
- As held above, the Opposite Party has certainly committed deficiency in service, in delaying the shifting of the pole/ stay from the front of the plot of the complainant for about 8 months which should have been done within a month or so after the deposit of the requisite fee by the complainant. Consequently, the Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 20-02-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member (Anoop Sharma) hrg Member | |
