BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 644 of 9.8.2010 

                                                Decided on:          5.5.2011

Ram Singh aged about 28 years son of late Sh.Som Nath, resident of village Dedhna, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.

                                                                            -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Limited H.O.,The Mall, Patiala, through its Managing Director.

2.                 S.D.O.(Rural) Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     In person.

For opposite parties:     Sh.Pawan Puri , Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   This is the complaint brought by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) alleging that electricity connection bearing account No.VA-2-2133 of 5 BHP was owned by his father and the same was connected with a transformer of 6.3KVA. The father of the complainant having died on 29.10.2004, the complainant has been making a use of the connection being the legal heir of the deceased.

2.                                   It is further averred by the complainant that he got the load of the connection extended from 5BHP to 7 ½ BHP on 9.7.2007 having deposited Rs.8000/- with the ops. A transformer of 10KVA had to be installed by the ops for which purpose the complainant had been approaching the ops so as to replace the transformer with a capacity of 10-KVA but the ops failed to pay any heed to his request.

3.                                   It is further averred by the complainant that he got the load of connection extended from 7 ½ BHP to 15 BHP having deposited the security amount of Rs.9000/- on 29.1.2010 .After the extension of the load, the complainant had met the ops for the replacement of the transfer of the capacity of 16KVA but he was put off on one or the other pretext.

4.                                   On 15.6.2010, the complainant filed an application before the ops with a request to replace the transformer of the capacity of 16KVA further having averred that in case ops failed to get the transformer replaced, he will get the same replaced at his own cost and they(ops) will be liable to pay for the price of the transformer so as to avoid any loss to be suffered by the complainant in the matter of sowing his crop of the paddy.

5.                                   It is further averred that the ops having failed to replace the transformer, the complainant had purchased 16KVA transformer from Gupta Electrical and H/W Store Samana on 26.6.2010 for an amount of Rs.25000/- and got the same installed.

6.                                   The complainant approached the ops having filed the complaint dated 16.7.2010 so as to make the payment of the price of the transformer, the complainant having produced the bill alongwith application but the ops failed to pay the price of the transformer. Accordingly the complainant has approached this Forum through the present complaint for a direction to the ops to pay him the price of the transformer i.e. Rs.25000/- and Rs.50000/- by way of compensation on account of harassment suffered by him at the hands of the ops.

7.                                   On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is admitted by the ops that the electricity connection in question was installed in the name of Som Nath, having a capacity of 5BHP connected with a transformer of 6.3KVA. It is however, denied for want of knowledge, if the father of the complainant died on 29.10.2004.

8.                                   It is further averred by the ops that the complainant has misrepresented the facts. The ops have admitted the fact that the  consumer had applied for the extension of the load from 5 BHP to 7 ½ BHP which was allowed by the, the then P.S.E.B. Thereafter the complainant applied for the extension of the load from 7 ½ BHP to 15 BHP. There being an increase of 7 ½ BHP load, the transformer had become over loaded. The ops introduced HVDS scheme. The Power Corporation had prepared the estimate of Rs.25805/- for the installation of the transformer of 16KVA at the site of the consumer. Necessary approval for the same had been obtained from the competent authority. The material had also been drawn from the stores of the Power Corporation. However, the complainant had taken the law into his own hands and installed his own transformer unauthorizedly without the consent of the ops and then he started using the electricity from his own transformer which is not permissible under the rules and regulations of the Power Corporation.

9.                                   It is further averred by the ops that the staff members of the ops had visited the site of the complainant several times for the installation of the transformer but the complainant did not allow them to do so and interfered in the affairs of the state. It is denied, if, a transformer of the capacity of 10 KVA had to be installed when the complainant got the load extended from 5BHP to 7 ½ BHP. It is admitted that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.9000/- for the extension of load on 29.1.2010.The case of the complainant had been processed by the concerned officials of the ops.

10.                                 It is further averred by the ops that the illegal acts of the complainant in having got the transformer installed at his own level with the help of the private electrician were under consideration for proper action to be taken against the complainant as the same can cause loss to the property of the Power Corporation and also to the villagers. The complainant is not entitled to the cost of the transformer. Ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

11.                                 To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint the complainant tendered in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents,Exs.C1 to C7 and closed his evidence.

12.                                 On the other hand on behalf of the ops their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the reply filed to the complaint alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R3 and closed the evidence.

13.                                 The complainant has filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the  learned counsel of the parties and also gone through the evidence/record on the file.           

14.                                 First of all we take up the point regarding the maintainability of the complaint by the complainant.It is the plea taken up by the complainant that his father Som Nath was the consumer of the electricity account bearing No.VA-2-2133 who expired on 29.10.2004 and he being the legal heir of his father has been making a use of the electricity connection.

15.                                 It was submitted by Sh.Pawan Puri, the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant has never approached the ops for getting the electric connection transferred in his favour having moved an application in this regard and therefore, he can not be called as consumer of the ops. Simply because he has been paying the charges of the electricity although the electricity connection is standing in the name of a dead person would not mean that he is a consumer of the ops.In this regard he placed reliance upon the citation Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & Ors. Versus Goverdhan Prasad Dhurandhar 1(2010)CPJ 63 of the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur.In the case of the citation it was observed that it was not in dispute that electricity supply connection stood in the name of Taaplal Dhurandhar, who had died long back in the year 1990 and thereafter, the complainant had been enjoying the electricity through the supply connection, which was standing in the name of a dead person. It was also not in dispute that no application for change in  name of the consumer or providing connection in the name of the complainant or mutation of his name in place of his father had ever been made by the complainant. It was observed by the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh State Commission that the facts showed that the complainant was not a consumer of the appellants. He was simply paying  sometimes charges of the electricity already used though connection was standing in the name of a dead person. It was observed that mere use of electricity through a connection in the name of a dead person cannot confer the status of the consumer on the complainant and that the complainant could not be said to be a consumer of the appellants and therefore, the complaint did not lie under the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

16.                                 To the contrary, the complainant submitted that the ops did not dispute the factum of his being the legal heir of the deceased Som Nath and accordingly he is the consumer of the electricity connection in question.

17.                                  We have considered the submissions on the point. under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act 2003. “Consumer”means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;”

18.                                 Therefore, taking into account the definition of “consumer”, it is not necessary that the consumer must be recorded as the holder of an account in the record of the licensee. It is not the case of the ops that the electricity connection bearing account No.VA-2-2133 is not lying installed in the premises of the complainant. Therefore, we find ourselves unable  not to recognize the complainant as a consumer of the ops, particularly when the ops after having got the security of Rs.9000/- deposited by the complainant sanctioned the extension of the load from 7.5BHP to 15BHP.So we find that the complaint filed by the complainant is certainly maintainable against the ops, he being a consumer of the ops.

19.                                 Now it has to be seen whether the complainant had any cause of action to file the complaint against the ops, it is the plea taken up by the ops that on the complainant having applied for the extension in  load from 7.5BHP to 15BHP, the ops introduced HVDS scheme. The Power Corporation had prepared the estimate of Rs.25805/- for the installation of a transformer of 16KVA at the site of the consumer. The necessary approval has been obtained from the competent authority. The material had been drawn from the store of the Power Corporation for completing the work at the site. However, the complainant had taken the law into his own hand and unauthorizedly installed his own transformer(Pvt.transformer) without the consent of the ops. He has started making a use of the electricity from his own transformer which is not permissible under the rules and regulations of the Power Corporation. In this regard Sh.Pawan Puri, the learned counsel for the ops made a reference to letter no.2236 dated 15.6.2010 written by the Sr.Executive Engineer Distribution Circle P.S.P.C.L.Patran to Assistant Executive Engineer Distribution Sub Division(Rural) Patran regarding the augmentation of  6.3 KVA to 16KVA in respect of consumer Som Nath/Dedhna showing the estimate of Rs.25805/- .The letter also contains leaf no.6 regarding the requisition of the material made from the store.

20.                                 Then it was submitted by Sh.Puri, that under Regulation No.21.2.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations, a consumer applying for extension in load shall submit A&A form alongwith a requisite security. On approval of the sanction in load demand shall be issued requiring the consumer to pay special charges(non refundable)  @ Rs.500/- per BHP for the extension of the load and also to submit a new test report at the time of the compliance of the demand notice.

21.                                 Rule 21.4.2.1 provides that where augmentation of the system is not involved: Under this seniority, demand notices shall be immediately issued after receipt of application and agreement. The extension shall be allowed without any delay after the deposit of special charges and test report.

22.                                 Rule 21.4.2.2 provides that where augmentation of the transformer/ supply system is involved: Under the seniority demand notices shall be issued after augmentation of the transformer/supply system.

23.                                 Rule 21.4.4 provides that the competency for regularization of extension in load in case of existing consumers as well as new extensions shall rest with Dy.C.E./S.E.(op).

24.                                 Regulation No.22.1 provides that after the load applied by the prospective consumer and the estimate for carrying out  works have been got sanctioned from the competent authority, suitable entry shall be made in the service register. The applicant will also be expeditiously informed about the sanction of load on “E.B. Form C.S.5-Intimation of acceptance of application and demand notice”

25                                  In that view of the regulations, it was submitted by Sh.Puri, the learned counsel of the ops that in no way a consumer is shown to be competent in installing his own transformer so as to augment the system. All this has to be done by the authorities of the Power Corporation at their own level.

26.                                 Then it was submitted by Sh.Puri that a consumer can not install any transformer and that too claiming the price of the same from the ops without obtaining an order in this regard.In any case the work regarding the installation of the transformer has to be done by the ops. It appears that the complainant acted illegally in having got the transformer of 16KVA installed at his own level.

27.                                 On the other hand the complainant failed to show the Forum any regulations which enable a consumer to install his own transformer and then to recover the cost of the same from the ops.

28.                                 We have considered the submissions and find that the installation of 16KVA transformer by the complainant at the site at his own level is not covered by the Electricity Supply Regulations and therefore, he was not competent to do so and therefore, the question of the complainant asking for the price of the transformer from the ops does not rise. It is the case of the ops that they are considering the action to be taken against the complainant for his having illegally installed the transformer at his own level with the help of the private electrician because it can cause a risk of danger to the residents of the village. Such an action on the part of the ops should have been initiated immediately on the complainant having installed his own transformer so as to give the impression that nobody can be allowed to take the law into his own hands.The complainant could approach this Forum for a compensation in case there was any intentional delay on the part of the ops in the installation of the transformer of 16KVA and that too in violation of the regulations but certainly the complainant could not approach the Forum for any compensation on the basis of the illegal acts committed by him. It has no where been disclosed by the complainant that 16KVA transformer was installed by the ops on his having supplied the transformer and rather it is the positive plea taken up by the complainant that  having purchased the 16KVA transformer from Gupta Electrical and Hardware store Samana on 26.6.2010, he got the same installed in order to avoid any delay in sowing of the crop of the paddy. We therefore, find that the act of the complainant in this regard amounted to an illegality and he had no cause of action to file the complaint against the ops and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5000/-.

Pronounced.

Dated:5.5.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President