DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB. 

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/286

Date of Institution : 12.04.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 12.09.2022

Sh. Rajan Puri son of Sh. Santosh Kumar Puri resident of P 31, Impact Park, Near Garden Enclave, Bye-Pass Road, Amritsar.             …Complainant

Versus

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Through S.D.O. (Commercial), Industrial Commercial Sub-Division O/S Hall Gate, Amritsar.

2.M/s Impact Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Garden Enclave)  office at V & P.O. Khankot, G.T. Road Bye-pass, Amritsar through its Director S. Ajay Singh Cheema son of Lt. Col. A.S. Cheema.

3.Col. Balwinder Singh Gill Manager/Authorized representative of M/s Impact Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Garden Enclave)  office at V & P.O. Khankot, G.T. Road Bye-pass, Amritsar.  

                 …Opposite Parties

Complaint U/S 11 & 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date)

Present: Sh. S.K. Sharma Adv counsel for complainants.

Sh. V.K. Sehgal Adv counsel for the opposite party No. 1.

Sh. Vivek Varmani counsel for opposite parties No. 2 & 3.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & others (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant is that the complainant had purchased one plot bearing private No. P-31 Impact Park, near Garden Enclave, Opposite Ryan International School Verka Bye-Pass Amritsar vide registered sale deed dated 8.10.2013 from Smt. Jagroop Kaur wife of Jaspinder Singh and at the time of the purchase of this property the complainant approached and inquired from the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 regarding the approval of the colony from PUDA. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 told the complainant that this plot falls in the approved colony duly approved vide license No. LDC-II & UD/Competent Authority (STP-ASR) 27/2006 dated 30.6.2006 under Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act 1995 which fact is also got mentioned in the original sale deed executed by the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 in favour of Smt. Jagroop Kaur. It is further alleged that after the purchase of this property the complainant applied for new electricity connection. Earlier the opposite party No. 1 refused to accept his file but after lot of requests the opposite party No. 1 accepted his new electricity connection file. It is alleged that they further asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 2,770/- as fee for the new electricity connection which was deposited vide receipt No. 214700061577 dated 20.2.2018 of Rs. 2,770/-. But till date the opposite party No. 1 failed to release the electricity connection in his name. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 1 number of times for getting electricity connection but every time the complainant was sent back by giving lame excuse by the officials of the opposite party No. 1. Ultimately, few days back the opposite party No. 1 totally refused to release the new electricity connection. The opposite party No. 1 had also issued a letter memo No. 742 dated 4.4.2018 vide which the opposite party No. 1 refused to give the new electricity connection to the complainant. It is further alleged that the LED system and Transformer has already been installed in this colony by the colonizer and permanent DS tariff connection have been granted to more than 50-60 residents of this colony by the opposite party No. 1. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 1 had refused/grant of new electricity connection to the complainant malafidely with view to harass and pressurize the complainant. The complainant is ready to fulfill the requisite terms and conditions of the opposite party No. 1 for the grant of electricity connection. All the opposite parties try to evade their liabilities by shifting the burden on each other as a result of which the complainants are suffering and this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-

i) The opposite party No. 1 may be directed to release the permanent electric connection in the name of complainant and necessary legal action may be taken against the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 under the PAPRA Act, 1995.     

ii) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written reply by taking preliminary objections interalia on the ground that the plot denoted with Private No. P-31, in Garden Enclave Amritsar is part of a colony developed by opposite parties No. 2 & 3 and the colony is approved by the PUDA. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are under contractual obligation to provide in their colony all the amenities of passages, streets/roads, water and electricity supplies, sewerage system etc., to the intended occupants/buyers of the plots/buildings in the colony besides other amenities, as such it is the duty of the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 to provide the amenity of electricity to the inhabitants of the Garden Enclave Colony. It is further alleged that as per the standing instructions issued by the Director PSEB Patiala (now PSPCL) vide letter No. 50 of 2007 dated 17.9.2007 regarding laying of LD system i.e. 11 KV Substation to project site and for laying HT lines, CT/PT meter energy, no electricity connection to the Builder/Developer or other authority or to any private individual can be given in a colony until approval of the Layout Plan of LD system by the Chief Electrical Inspector and making provision for Transformers, and until the Colonizer/Developer deposits the requisite amount with the PSPCL for laying HT/LT lines from Sub Station to the colony. It is alleged that NOC for development of Garden Enclave, Colony issued to the opposite party No. 2 is subject to deposit of payment of Estimate cost of connectivity charges to the tune of Rs. 26,73,522/- under clause 6.7.1 of the Supply Code and the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 have not handed over the LD system to the opposite party No. 1 nor any intimation of completion of LD system as per approved Layout plan is given despite repeated letters of the opposite party No. 1. It is the liabilities of the Colonizer/Developer  of the colony to bear the expenses for providing laying HT lines from Sub Station to the colony and handover the LD system after completion. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party qua the Punjab Urban Development Authority, as such the present case cannot be adjudicated properly without presence of the PUDA in this complaint. It was the duty of the complainant to ascertain as to whether the opposite party No. 2 had arranged the amenities of water, sewerage, electricity etc. This Forum/Commission has no jurisdiction because under law any complaint arising for failure on the part of the colonizer to provide necessary amenities to the inhabitants of a PUDA approved colony, lies with the PUDA only. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 reiterated the averments as mentioned in the preliminary objections and denied the case of the complainants and also prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 filed written version by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of the complaint is bad for joinder of un-necessary parties, maintainability, no cause of action etc. On merits, it is admitted that LED system has already been installed in the colony in question and a number of connections have already been granted to many residents by the opposite party No. 1. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 have completed all the formalities. All other allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

5. In order to prove the case the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of the sale deed Ex.C-2, copy of the receipt Ex.C-3, copy of the letter Ex.C-4, copy of the bill Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6, copy of circular Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence. 

6. The opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Vipan Vig, AEE Ex.O.P1/A alongwith documents Ex.O.P2 to Ex.O.P8 and closed the evidence. 

7. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Col. Balwinder Singh Ex.O.P2.3/A, copy of licence to develop colony Ex.O.P2.3/1, copy of completion certificate Ex.O.P2.3/2, copy of final NOC Ex.O.P2.3/3, copy of conveyance deed Ex.O.P2.3/4, copy of letter to MC Ex.O.P2.3/5 (colly) and closed the evidence. 

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on record by the parties.  

9. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant after fulfilling all the requisite formalities applied for the new permanent electricity connection in his name and deposited the new connection file with the opposite party No. 1 but till date the opposite party No. 1 failed to release the electricity connection in his name. The complainant went to their office for inquiry of his new connection many a times but every time the matter was put off under one pretext or the other and lastly refused to provide the new electricity connection to the complainant. The complainant had already fulfilled all the requisite formalities and still ready to fulfill any conditions, if any for the release of new connection. It is worth to mention here that the LD system and transformer has already been installed in the colony by the colonizer and permanent DS connections have been granted to 50-60 residents of this colony. Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the aforesaid act of the opposite party amounts to a great negligence, carelessness, deficiency in service due to which the complainant has suffered a great mental pain, agony, harassment as well as inconvenience 

11. On the other hand Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1  repelled the aforesaid contentions of the Ld. counsel for the complainant and has vehemently argued that release of electricity connections in approved colonies is subject to compliance by developer of the colony of certain provisions of regulation 6:7:1 of the Supply code 2014 and commercial circulars of the PSPCL including one circular No. 50 of 2007 issued by Chief Engineer, Patiala regarding erection of electrical LD system for the colony approval from Chief Electrical Inspector of the State Govt. and thereafter handing over of the same to the PSPCL and payment of connectivity charges of cost of laying HT lines from distribution sub station of the PSPCL to upto entry gate of the colony. Before erection of LD system it is obligation of the developer to obtain preliminary NOC from the Chief Engineer and the LD system has to be laid in terms of the NOC and to be completed within period stipulated in the NOC. Despite various letters colonizer has to be required by the PSPCL to erect combined electrical LD system for all 6 colonies developed by M/s. Impact Projects Pvt. Ltd in the same vicinity where colony subject matter of this complaint is located but the developer has filed to handover combined LD system of his colonies despite repeated requests and reminders even despite directions given by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 23009 of 2016 decided on 17.4.2021 which was filed by M/s. Impact Projects Pvt. Ltd against the PSPCL. As such on account of breach of terms of NOC granted to the promoter of the colony and its failure in approval of and handing over the LD system for the colony, no electricity connections can be released in the colony of Impact Estate. 

12. From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case the moot question involved in this case is whether the complainant is entitled to the electricity connection which the opposite party No. 1  has failed to provide to the complainant. 

13. This Commission has given thoughtful consideration to the averments made by the complainant vis a vis opposite party. This Commission is of the considered view that scheme of the Consumer Protection Act is based upon the principle to protect the rights of the consumers and this Commission only to look into the fact that where there is deficiency in service on the part of the party concerned, right of the consumer may be safe guarded and concept of entire Act is based on the principle of natural justice, equity and natural justice. This Commission also relied upon the law laid down referred in the following judgments: 

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. Versus Zora Singh and others Civil Appeal No.4910-4981 of 2005 has held that electricity Board is a State within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Board is expected to discharge its statutory functions within a reasonable time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further held that A ‘State’ within Article 12 of the Constitution of India must act fairly and bonafide it cannot act for a purpose which is wholly unauthorized and not germane for achieving the object it professes whether under a statute or otherwise. Similarly, Hon’ble Madras High Court in case titled as T.M.Prakash and others Versus District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai and another 2013 (4 ) CLT 829 held that accessibility to electricity was considered as right to life – Lack of electricity denies person to equal opportunities in education, suitable employment, health, sanitation and other socioeconomic right – hence amounts to violation of human rights – Constitution mandates socio economic justice – Difficulties of women, children and aged persons living in huts without electricity was to be visualized – Hence mandatory on licence to provide electricity supply to occupants of promoboke lands on production of ‘No Objection Certificate. Petitioners entitled to seek electricity service connection – Respondents hence directed to provide electricity supply to petitioners.

14. This Commission also relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Versus Gurpiar Singh 2012(3) CPJ 217 and another judgement titled as Asstt. Engineer Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam and others Versus Bodan Ram in Revision Petition No.3008 of 2003 where similar view is taken by the Hon’ble State Commission and law cited above. 

15. So far as an order passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as M/s.Impact Projects Private Limited and another Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and other CWP 23009 of 2019 is concerned, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has also protected the right of the consumer and held that right of the consumer may not suffer due to negligence, cleverness and other acts of the colonizer. The relevant abstract of the judgement is reproduced particularly para 4.9 of the order as under : 

“4.9 This matter can be examined from yet another perspective. If in the absence of complete infrastructure, the distribution licensee is forced to take over the incomplete local electricity distribution network, the consumer are likely to suffer.” 

16. Keeping in view the law as above, this Commission is of the view that the right of the consumer should not suffer in any manner whatsoever. Since the electricity is dire need of life of anyone individual, hence, same is protected by the legislature by enforcing the present Act i.e. Consumer Protection Act. 

17. So, keeping in totality of circumstances, we partly allow the complaint against the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to release permanent electricity connection to the complainant subject to payment of the necessary fee, if not deposited. However, opposite party No. 1 is at liberty to take appropriate action against the colonizer/promoter of the colony as per law if they are not complying with the conditions as agreed between the parties. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        12th Day of September 2022

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member