| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.291 of 26-10-2018 Decided on 21-11-2018 Narinder Singh aged about 42 years S/o Harnek Singh S/o Harnam Singh R/o Village Siriewala, Tehsil Phul District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary. 2.X.E.N. PSPCL. Sub Division, Kotkapura, District Faridkot. 3.S.D.O., PSPCL, Sub Division, Baja Khana District Faridkot. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur Member Present:- For the complainant: Sh.H.S Sidhu, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.J.D Nayyar, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Narinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he belongs to backward class. He is residing alongwith his brothers at village Siriewala, District Bathinda, but they are separate in mess and work. The complainant is having electric connection bearing account No.F41SR471513K. It is installed in his house for the last more than one and half year. He is paying the electricity bills as per consumption from time to time as consumption of electricity up to date. Nothing is due against him. It is alleged that on 9.10.2018, the officials of opposite parties wrongly and illegally removed the electricity meter of the complainant without assigning him any reason or issuing any notice. He requested the officials of opposite parties not to disconnect the electricity connection and remove the electricity meter, but to no effect. It is further alleged that due to the act of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered from great mental tension and is being disturbed in study of his children. He repeatedly visited the office of opposite parties and requested them to restore the electricity connection and install the electricity meter, but to no effect. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged that he has suffered from great mental tension, harassment and botheration. For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lakh and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- in addition to directions to opposite parties to restore the electricity connection and install the meter. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In the written version, opposite parties have raised the legal objections regarding maintainability of complaint; cause-of-action; concealment of facts, jurisdiction of this Forum and that the complainant is not 'consumer'. As per opposite parties, actual facts are that the premises where the electricity connection has been installed, were checked by their officials on 4.10.2018. On checking, it was found that there was one main gate in the premises with one common kitchen and bathroom. There was no wall separating the premises in any manner vide which the premises could be separated. As such, all three connections were running in the same premises. They are also using one single motor. It clearly proves that the complainant with malafide intention to avail the benefit of discounted units under BC category, had taken three different meters, which was in a direct way loss to the electricity department. As such, there was no separate walls or gates in the same premises and all the meters running in the same premises. It was found that it is only one electricity meter, which is required to be running over there. As such, other two meters including one in question were removed as per rules. The checking report was made at the spot by the concerned official, which was also signed by the complainant. The entire load had been shifted upon the single meter bearing electricity connection No.SR-47/812 under clause 35.2 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, which deals with clubbing of more than one connection in same premises and under the clause x (b) dealing with one connection in one premises. It is further asserted that the electricity meter has been rightly removed. There is no illegality. The complaint deserves dismissal. Further legal objections are that the complainant is not entitled to relief. The matter in dispute is not covered under the definition of service. There is neither any deficiency of service nor unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. On merits, opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, they have prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of caste certificate, (Ex.C1); photocopy of ration card, (Ex.C2); photocopy of gas card, (Ex.C3); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C4); photocopies of payment receipts, (Ex.C5 and Ex.C6) and his affidavit dated 26.10.2018, (Ex.C7). To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sukhdev Singh dated 12.11.2018, (Ex.OP1/1); affidavit of Amandeep Singh dated 12.11.2018, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of instructions manual, (Ex.OP1/3); photocopy of checking report, (Ex.OP1/4); photocopy of PDCO, (Ex.OP1/5) and CD, (Ex.OP1/6). We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his averments as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the electricity meter was installed for premises of the complainant after duly inspection of site. In case, there was only one common kitchen as alleged, opposite parties were not to install the meter. The documents placed on record by the complainant proves that he is having separate ration card and gas connection. These facts prove that he is separate in mess and kitchen. Therefore, the action of opposite parties is patently illegal. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that opposite parties have referred to clause 35.2 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, but this clause is not applicable. This clause rather proves that at the time of installing the meter, opposite parties were required to verify whether there is physical separation or not and only then, electricity connection was to be allowed. This fact rather proves that the electricity connection was allowed to the complainant after due verification. Now, disconnection is not permissible. Even otherwise, in case, opposite parties have to allege that there were more than one connection in the same premises, they were to follow the procedure as per clause 35.4, but no such procedure has been followed. No opportunity of hearing was given to the complainant before disconnection or removal of meter. All these facts prove that opposite parties have adopted unfair trade practice, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has reiterated his stand as taken in the written version and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that the electricity connection has been disconnected as per report dated 4.10.2018, copy of which is Ex.OP1/4. It was observed that 3 families were residing in the same premises. The premises was having one common gate. There was only one kitchen and there was no partition wall or demarcation depicting any separation. As such, it was recommended that the load be covered in one account. Therefore, action of opposite parties is as per rules and procedure. The complaint is without merits and be dismissed. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Admittedly, the complainant was released domestic connection. It has been disconnected. The version of opposite parties is that the electricity connection has been disconnected as per clause 35.2 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual. Admittedly, as per Electricity Supply Code's Clause 7.4, only one connection in one premises is permissible. It is also not disputed that one domestic supply consumer may get more than one connection in same premises when the family members/occupants living in a house have separate cooking arrangement. This fact proves that more than one connection in one premises are not strictly barred but is permissible under certain circumstances. It is also not disputed that before release of electricity connection, opposite parties were under obligation to inspect the premises where the electricity connection was to be released. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the electricity connection was released after inspection of premises and after fulfillment of requisite condition. Now, version of opposite parties is that more than one connection were operating in one premises. Opposite parties have quoted clause 35.2 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual. This clause relates to release of new electricity connection in the same premises, another connection can be allowed only if there is physical separation. Therefore, this clause also proves that before release of electricity connection, opposite parties were to satisfy themselves regarding eligibility of applicant for getting the electricity connection in the premises where already electricity connection is in existence. This fact rather goes to show that opposite parties have satisfied themselves before release of electricity connection. There is another aspect of matter also. Clause 35.4 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual deals with situation when a consumer is found to have more than one connection in the same or in different names. For sake of convenience, this clause is reproduced as under:- “When a consumer is found to have more than one connection in the same or different names, the PSPCL will: (i) after serving a notice for clubbing of connections, effect supply at one point in case the consumers located in the premises are entitled to one connection only; (ii) on request effect supply at one point if two or more consumers in the same same premises have a distinct identity but are under the control of the same person (s) (iii) Within 3 months of the service of notice on the consumer/receipt of requests from the consumer, switch over to HT supply if connected load of all such entities in the premises exceeds 100 KW; (iv) within 6 months of the service of notice on the consumer, convert supply to 33 KV/66 KV at the consumers cost if the total contract demand exceeds 2500 KVA. All such consumers will from the date of service of notice be billed under the tariff category applicable to the total connected load/contract demand.”
Therefore, as per this clause also, before taking action, opposite parties were required to serve notice to the complainant. There is nothing to show that provision of this clause have been complied with. Opposite parties have straightway disconnected the electricity connection without issuing notice to the complainant and without giving him opportunity of hearing. Therefore, it amounts to deficiency in service. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to restore the electricity supply to the complainant by installing the meter within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, this order will not prejudice the right of opposite parties, if any, to further proceed with the matter thereafter as per law/rules and regulations. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 21-11-2018 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
