| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.407 of 05-10-2015 Decided on 12-05-2017 Darshan Singh aged about 53 years S/o Mehar Singh R/o Dialpura Mirza Road, Village Gumti Kalan, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Managing Director/Chairman. 2.S.D.O/A.E, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Bhai Rupa, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Ravinder Kumar Duggal, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.J.D Nayyar, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Darshan Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he applied for the domestic connection for his residential house situated at Village Gumti Kalan, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda with opposite party No.2 on 5.8.2008. He deposited the requisite security of Rs.2990/- vide receipt No.2311/489 dated 5.8.2008 with opposite party No.2. It is alleged that at the time of applying of electricity connection, opposite parties assured the complainant to release the electricity connection within the stipulated period of 10 days. Thereafter the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.2, but it did not release him electricity connection within the stipulated period of 10 days or thereafter. He had gone to Claifornia, after putting the lock on his residential house. No electricity connection was released by opposite parties till the date of leaving the country. After 2008, the complainant visited India about 3/4 times. During his visit, he visited his residential house, which is lying locked.Since no electricity connection has been released by opposite parties in his house,he was unable to reside in his house. As such, he visited the office of opposite party No.2 and requested it to release the electricity connection in his name, but opposite parties have failed to release the electricity connection in his house till date, although, a period of more than 7 years has already lapsed. Even as per rules and regulations, opposite parties are bound to release the new electricity connection within the period of 15 days from the date of applying for the electricity connection and deposit of the security. It is further alleged that due to act of opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from great mental tension, botheration, harassment and humiliation. He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation. He has also prayed for directions to opposite parties to release him the electricity connection. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version. In the joint written version, opposite parties have raised the legal objections regarding maintainability of complaint; locus-standi; cause-of-action and jurisdiction of this Forum. It is also pleaded that the complainant is not 'consumer' as the electricity connection has not been released. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and he has concealed the true facts from this Forum. The premises of the complainant was checked by Addl. S.E, Enforcement, Bathinda on 29.11.2008 alongwith his staff in the presence of Raj Kumar. It was found that the father of the complainant was committing theft of electricity for the construction of Kothi by laying wire directly on LT line. He was running load of 6.009 K.W. The wire, which was used for running the load, was removed and given to A.J.E. On the basis of this checking, a letter was sent to Mehnga Singh for depositing the amount of Rs.4,04,856/-, which has not been deposited till date. It is further pleaded that the premises of the complainant was again checked on 24.5.2013 by Jagjit Singh, S.D.O, Nathana alongwith his staff in the presence of Mandip Singh. The complainant was committing theft of electricity by laying wire of 15 meter PVC on LT line outside of his house and running load of 3.21 K.W. Mandip Singh, who signed on the checking report, after receiving the copy of checking report, revealed that his uncle, who is owner of the premises, is residing in the foreign. On the basis of this checking, a letter No.526 dated 24.5.2013 for depositing the amount of Rs.1,27,111/- was issued, but this amount was not deposited. The letter No.566 dated 24.5.2013 was also sent to Anti Power Theft for lodging F.I.R. The total amount of Rs.5,31,967/- for both the checking is outstanding against the complainant. The electricity connection cannot be released to him until he deposits the amount in question. There is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has applied for domestic connection and deposited the requisite fee. All other averments of the complaint are denied. 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 evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of power of attorney, (Ex.C1); photocopy of receipt, (Ex.C2); affidavit of Kamaljeet Kaur dated 18.3.2016, (Ex.C3) and submitted written arguments. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Jagsir Singh, S.D.O dated 13.5.2016, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopies of checking report, (Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/4); photocopy of memo, (Ex.OP1/3); photocopies of letters, (Ex.OP1/5 and Ex.OP1/6) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well written arguments submitted by learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that it is not disputed that the complainant applied for domestic electricity connection in the year 2008 and deposited the requisite fee. Opposite parties have not denied non release of the electricity connection so far. They have denied release of electricity connection on the basis of memo and checking reports, copies of which are produced on record. None of these reports relate to the complainant. Therefore, he cannot be denied the electric connection. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. Opposite parties have revealed that the checking was conducted at the house of the complainant twice and theft of electricity was detected. The checking reports and copies of memos are also produced on record. In the affidavit, Kamaljeet Kaur, wife and attorney of the complainant, has rather pleaded that her husband has also challenged the impugned demands of Rs.4,04,856/- and Rs.1,27,111/- before Permanent Lok Adalat. This fact also shows that the complainant was in the knowledge of the checking reports and demands, but he has intentionally concealed this fact from this Forum. He is not entitled to any relief for this reason. Moreover a sum of Rs.5,31,967/- is already outstanding against the complainant. He has neither deposited this amount nor offered to deposit this amount. As such, the electricity connection cannot be released to him. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. It is well settled that a party, who conceals the material facts, is not entitled to any relief. The complainant has simply pleaded that he has applied for domestic electricity connection in the year 2008, but the electricity connection is not released to him. Opposite parties have produced on record checking reports and memo to prove that the checking of the premises was conducted twice and theft of electricity was detected. As per opposite parties, a sum of Rs.5,31,967/- is payable by the complainant on account of theft of the electricity. In the affidavit, Kamaljeet Kaur, wife and attorney of the complainant, has pleaded that her husband has challenged the demand before Permanent Lok Adalat. This fact shows that the complainant was in the knowledge of the checking reports, but he has intentionally concealed this fact. It also proves that as per opposite parties, a sum of Rs.5,31,967/- is payable by the complainant on account of theft of electricity. He has neither deposited this amount nor expressed his readiness to deposit it. In these circumstances, no deficiency in service can be attributed to opposite parties. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 12-05-2017 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
