DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 386 of 13-08-2012

Decided on 21-08-2013

Pritam Singh aged about 58 years S/o Geja Singh R/o Phul, District Bathinda.

….....Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary/Chairman

2. S.D.O./AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division, Rampura.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

For the opposite parties : Sh. M.L Bansal, counsel for the opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is holder of electric connection bearing A/c No. B61SP940008L under SP category, the said connection is being used by the complainant for agriculture purposes and the supply is given under metered supply. The complainant alleged that his SP connection was converted into AP in the record which is duly signed by the opposite party No. 2. As per policy of PSPCL, the AP bills were declared free as per CC No. 26/98 and tubewell connection which were released from industrial quota were also declared exempted from charging anything. The PSPCL again issued CC No. 10/2006 regarding free electricity to the farmers. The opposite parties started sending bills to the complainant on SP basis which are against law as the complainant is entitled for free supply as per Circular Nos. 10/2006 and 26/1998 because as per government instructions, farming sector has been exempted to pay electricity charges. The complainant alleged that as per Sales Regulations 85.03.01.02 also, the complainant is exempted to pay charges for electricity. The opposite parties were requested many times to withdraw the bills but to no effect. Even letter dated 25-7-2006 was also written. The complainant further alleged that there are other connections similar to complainant and Pritam Singh son of Maghar Singh R/o Phul A/c No. SP-6, Jagdev Singh son of Uttam Singh, R/o Phul SP-26 and Jaspal Singh son of Mukand Singh R/o Phul etc., whose bills are neither made nor charged. The complainant further alleged that he is getting bills on SP basis despite repeated requests to the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to dispense with the bills and not to charge the bills on SP basis and pay him compensation and cost.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the circulars mentioned in the complaint are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. As per circular No. 71/2003, only those AP connections have to be considered for free supply, which are running from rural feeder, but the connection of the complainant is running from urban feeder, so he is not entitled for free supply. The opposite parties have further pleaded that even as per CC No. 10/2006 Agriculture tubewells released under SP category, tubewell connections released to farmers of Kandi area, PAU Ludhiana, PSTC/IB lift irrigation, other connection released under SP/MS category and under TCA (Technical Co-op Assistance), are entitled to free supply and according to said circulars, the complainant is not entitled to free supply. The opposite parties have further pleaded that Pritam Singh A/c No. SP-6, Jagdev Singh A/c No. SP-26 and Mukand Singh might have got their connections converted with the concerned officials of PSPCL. An officials inquiry is being conducted against the guilty officials and departmental action shall be taken against them as per rules of PSPCL.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. In the case in hand, the allegation of the complainant is that his SP tubewell connection bearing account No. B61SP940008L was converted into AP connection in the record which was duly signed by the opposite party No. 2 and as per policy of the PSPCL, the AP bills were declared free vide CC. No. 26/98 and 10/2006. The connection of the complainant was issued from SP category, but it was for agricultural purposes. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that as per Government instructions farming sector has been exempted to pay electricity charges. The complainant alleged that despite his repeated written as well as verbal requests to the opposite parties to withdraw the bills, nothing has been done so far.

6. On the other hand, the submission of the opposite parties is that the circulars referred by the complainant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. He submitted that as per circular No. 71/2003, only those AP connections have to be considered for free supply, which are running from rural feeder, but the connection of the complainant is running from urban feeder. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant did not approach the opposite parties for the said relief and filed complaint before this Forum. He further submitted that the complainant is a defaulter as he is not depositing the due electricity charges.

7. A perusal of file reveals that the complainant has not placed on file any record to show that when he applied for the connection in question and under which category the same was issued to him. The complainant has alleged in para No. 3 of his complaint that his connection was converted into AP in the record which is duly signed by opposite party No. 2, but no evidence to prove this version has been placed on file by him. The documents placed on file by the complainant relates to the connection of one Surjit Singh. However, a perusal of documents Ex. R-4, Ex. R-9, Ex. R-10 and Ex. R-11 produced by the opposite parties reveals that the connection of the complainant has been issued under SP category for agricultural purposes. Moreover, in para No. 1 of complaint, the complainant has admitted this fact. Now the main question is as to whether the complainant is entitled for free electricity and if yes from when ?

   The submission of the opposite parties is that as per circular No. 71/2003, only those AP connections have to be considered for free supply, which are running from rural feeder. A perusal of Commercial Circular No. 71/2003 reveals that this circular is regarding the flat rate to be applied on the connections registered prior to 31-3-90 i.e. the date upto which the demand notice(s) have been issued. The connection of the complainant has been issued under SP category and admittedly his connection was not registered prior to 31-3-1990. Moreover, the connection in question is metered supply. Hence, this circular is not applicable to the case of the complainant.

8. The relevant portion of Commercial Circular No. 8/97 is reproduced hereunder :-

   “...Free Electricity to Agricultural Tubewell Consumers

   In suppression to C.C No. 50/96 dated 27-12-96, it has been decided by PSEB to give free electricity w.e.f. 14-2-97 onwards, to all categories of Agricultural Tubewells such as Tubewells covered under flat rate/metered supply category, agriculture tubewells released under SP category and tubewell connections released to PSTC/IB and under T.C.A. (Technical Co-operative Assistance) scheme etc., However, flat rate charges/electricity bills for full month of Jan.97 and Feb. 97 on prorata basis shall be payable by all the A.P. consumers except those who have already been exempted from payment of electricity charges under the signatures of AE/AEE....”

   The complainant has failed to produce on file even a single document to establish his case. He has not produced any evidence to prove that he ever wrote any letter or approached the opposite parties for free electricity supply. Even the complainant has knocked the door of this Forum after about 15 years. Since the letter dated 25-7-2006 Ex. C-5 produced on file by the complainant does not bear any stamp, name and designation of the person, it cannot be said that said letter was actually received by the opposite parties. In the case in hand, the onus was on the complainant to prove that he has not been provided free electricity despite his continuous efforts. On the other hand, the opposite parties produced before this Forum complete file of the electric connection of the complainant. The opposite parties are handling number of consumers and it is not possible for them to go through the case of each and every consumer and provide facilities to them of their own without approaching or seeking such relief by the consumer himself.

9. Hence, in such circumstances, this Forum is of the considered opinion that as per CC No. 8/97 the complainant is entitled to free electricity but w.e.f. the date of institution of this complaint that too if the CC in question is still applicable and free electricity supply is not stopped by the government to the category/scheme under which the complainant falls, by any further circular/instructions. Since copies of bills produced before this Forum by the complainant, during arguments, reveals that he stopped depositing the bills of his own with the opposite parties and became defaulter whereas stay was neither sought nor granted by this Forum, so he is not entitled to any compensation and cost.

10. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted without any order as to cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to give facility of free electricity to the complainant as per rules of PSPCL keeping in view CC No. 8/97 but with effect from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 13-08-2012 that too if the CC in question is still applicable and free electricity supply is not stopped by the government to the category/scheme under which the complainant falls, by any further circular/instructions.

11. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

    A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs and the file be consigned to the record.

    Pronounced in open Forum

    21-08-2013

    (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

    President

     

    (Amarjeet Paul)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member