Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Mukhtar Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  on 23.6.2016 at about 21.00 hrs, power supply to the house of the complainant got suddenly disrupted.  The complainant got registered his complaint on phone No. 96461-20143 and he was informed that duty of the present staff was only upto 22.00 hours and the matter would be resolved after 22.00 hrs when the new staff  reported for duty. The complainant reminded his complaint to the staff who reported for duty. At about 00.30 hrs (midnight) on 24.6.2016 two men came to the house of the complainant  and asked for a ladder, which was provided to them. Both men turn by turn climbed up the latter and inspected the supply line which resulted in a big spark, after which they declared that the problem could be resolved only during day time. Thereafter uptil 6.00 a.m. on 24.6.2016 , the aforesaid employees of the opposite party did not resolve the problem. The complainant waited till 6.59 a.m on 24.6.2016 and thereafter he reported the matter to the higher authorities on phone No. 1912 to which the complainant got an  SMS . The complainant waited till 12.30 hrs on 24.6.2016 but nobody from the PSPCL turned up to resolve the matter. Ultimately complainant resolved the matter at his own level.  It was only on 25.6.2016 complainant got a call to enquire about the power supply to which the complainant told that the problem is resolved but the department had not bothered about his problem. The complainant, who is 80 years old  and his spouse aged about 78 years suffered a lot at the hands of the opposite party. The complainant has prayed for justice vide instant complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter-alia that present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party as the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint ; that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant got registered a complaint with the opposite party on 23.6.2016. After receiving the complaint two linemen’s visited the spot and found that there was a big default in Gang Operator in the transformer near the house of the complainant due to which the supply of the complainant was off. Both the employees of the PSPCL tried their best to rectify the problem in Gang Operator of the transformer but during working  there was a big spark in the transformer. As there was danger to the life of the employees, as such the employees of the PSPCL switched off the main supply of the colony and decided to rectify the default in the morning time. In the early morning two linemen’s visited the spot and rectified the default in the transformer  . It was denied that nobody turned up to resolve the matter. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

3.       In his bid to prove the case , Mukhtar Singh complainant tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of the print out of the SMS Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5, brief description of the S MSs between the complainant and the department Ex.C-6, copy of bill dated 18.5.2016 Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh. Anil Sharma,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Lekh Raj AAE Ex.OP1, affidavit of Sh.Harish Kumar, Lineman Ex.OP2, copy of complaint register Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.

5.       We have heard the complainant in person and  ld.counsel for the opposite party and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.       On the basis of the evidence on record, the complainant has vehemently contended  that complainant is consumer of opposite party having electric connection bearing account No.3001797695 in the area of  Amritsar. On 23.6.2016 at about 21.00 hrs  power supply to the house of the complainant got suddenly disrupted . At about 21.30 hrs the  complainant got registered complaint on phone No. 96461-20143. But, however, the employees of the opposite party came at about 00.30 hrs (midnight) on 24.6.2016.  They took the ladder from the complainant and inspected the supply & suddenly there was a big spark. After which the employees stated that the problem could only be resolved during day time. Thereafter uptil 6.00 a.m. on 24.6.2016, the aforesaid employees of the PSPCL did not resolve the problem. The complainant waited uptil 6.59 p.m. on 24.6.2016 and thereafter he reported the matter to higher authorities on phone No. 1912 to which the complainant got an  SMS that he should wait uptil 12.30 hours but, however, nobody from PSPCL turned up to resolve the matter. Ultimately the complainant got his problem resolved at his own level. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party did not bother to resolve the problem of the complainant despite repeated requests. Reference has been made to SMSs exchanged inter-se parties i.e. Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 in this regard. It has been contended that the complainant is a retired Town Planner and is aged about 80 years while his wife is aged about 78 years and they had to suffer due to the deficient service  of the opposite party.  Therefore, the opposite party may be suitably penalized for dereliction in duty while the complainant may be awarded compensation to make good the loss occasioned to him.

7.       But, however, it becomes evident that the disruption of electric supply to the electric connection of the complainant occurred due to defect in the transformer due to which  the electric supply to the house of the complainant went off. The employees of the PSPCL tried their best to rectify the problem of the Gang Operator of transformer but during the process there was a big spark in the transformer.  It was a night time. Since there was a danger to the life of the employees  & it was necessary to switch off the electric supply to the entire locality, therefore, the rectification was decided to be taken up during day time. The defect was accordingly rectified on 24.6.2016 during day time.  Copy of the complaint book Ex.OP3 bears witness to the said fact. The stand of the complainant that he had got the defect rectified at his own level has no takers because the complainant did not produce any witness/electrician to prove the said fact. Since the defect related to the functioning of the transformer of PSPCL & no private person could rectify the same. No doubt the complainant had to suffer an ordeal due to disruption in supply of electricity & it took long time for rectification, yet the opposite party cannot be held deficient in service. Opposite party took all possible measures to rectify the defect  but the defect being serious in nature which only could be rectified during day time on 24.6.2016.

8.       In our considered opinion there is no dereliction in duty on the part of the opposite party. The instant complaint fails and is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 11.11.2016

/R/