DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 432 of 17-09-2010 Decided on : 20-01-2011
Balwinder Singh aged about 60 years S/o Sh. Nazar Singh R/o Village Khemuana, District Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its M.D/CMD/Chairman. S.D.O./A.E.E. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Nathana.
.... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.D.Nayyar, counsel for the opposite parties.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
This 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 'Act'). The complainant is holder of tubewell connection No. AP150596 under OYT category. He deposited huge amount Rs. 78,690/- vide receipt No. 469 on 4-6-2008 with opposite party No. 2 for getting connection and connection was released to him on 19-08-2009. The entire material for getting the connection from 11 KV line, distribution transformer and service cable etc., were arranged by the complainant. The complainant has alleged that as per policy of the opposite parties the line is of the complainant for two years and during that period nobody could get the connection from the personal line of the complainant. If any body wanted to get the new connection, then he had to pay his share of the deposited amount. The opposite parties have got the amount deposited from Satpal Singh S/o Karnail Singh of Khemuana and are trying to give him the connection from the personal line of the complainant against rules. The complainant had made repeated requests to the opposite parties to pay the share of cost of electric line which was erected by the complainant personally, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint seeking directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to pay two third share of Rs. 78,690/-, if they wanted to release the connection to Satpal Singh S/o Karnail Singh, alongwith compensation and cost. The opposite parties filed their written version and pleaded that the line is the property of the opposite parties and they have right to release the connection to any person from this line as per load and there was no need for prior consent of the complainant. The opposite parties have admitted that they have received the application from Satpal Singh for the release of connection to him. However, they have pleaded that the connection would be released as per rules of the opposite parties. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The learned counsel for the complainant contented that complainant had deposited huge amount of Rs. 78,690/- vide receipt No. 469 on 4-6-2009 with opposite party No. 2 and tubewell connection was released to him on 19-08-2009 from 11 KV line. As per policy of the opposite parties, the line is of the complainant for two years, but the opposite parties got deposited the amount from Satpal Singh S/o Karnail Singh of Khemuana and are trying to give him the connection from personal line of the complainant. Thus, he is entitled to two third share of the amount deposited by him. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the amount deposited by the complainant was as per rules of the opposite parties. The line is the property of the opposite parties and the complainant has no right to restrain the opposite parties from releasing the connection to any person from the said line. The relevant paras of the commercial circulars of the opposite parties are reproduced hereunder :-
Para Nos. 3.6 and 3.7 of Commercial Circular No. 43/2000 “3.6 The applicants shall bear the entire cost of 11 KV line. LT Cable and other allied equipment minus cost of the equipments supplied by him as per para 3.5 above. The consumer shall also bear the cost of all other charges applicable, including cost of erection of transformers, 11 KV lines & other equipments required for the release of connections. Two or more applicants can share the cost of common 11 KV line. However, they shall be using separate transformer for their respective tubewells.
3.7 The replacement of the damaged transformer shall be the responsibility of the consumer.”
Commercial Circular No. 44/2007 para No. (iii).
“(iii).....Two or more applicants can jointly share the cost of common KV line. However, they shall be required to have separate transformer(s) for their respective tubewell. An undertaking duly notarized to this effect shall be submitted by them alongwith the application itself.” Commercial Circular No. 46/2001 para Nos. iv), v), vi) and vii)
“ iv) – The entire material required for release of tubewell connection i.e. 11 KV line/Distribution transformer and service cable shall be arranged/erected by the prospective consumer. Two or more applicants can share the cost of common 11 KV line. However, they shall be using separate transformer(s) for their respective tubewell (s). v) The consumer shall be responsible for replacement of entire material damaged during 2 years from the release of connection. However, it will be the responsibility of the consumer to replace transformer as and when the same is damaged being his own property.
vi) Once a connection is released to the consumer the Board shall carry out the routine Mtc. Of 11 KV line, of course within the first two years with the material for replacement being supplied by the consumer.” The connection has not been released to Satpal Singh yet. No evidence has been placed on the file that Satpal Singh S/o Karnail Singh has deposited any amount with the opposite parties. As per aforesaid circulars of the opposite parties, the complainant has to maintain 11 KVA line for two years but two or more consumers can share 11 KV line by using separate transformer for their respective tubewell. A perusal of order dated 18-08-2010 of Permanent Lok Adalat, Bathinda, Ex. C-2 reveals that a plaint dated 21-12-2009 titled Satpal Vs. Balwinder Singh and others filed in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bathinda, which pertained to suit for the issuance of mandate to defandant Balwinder Singh to make payment of expenses regarding erection of power line for the installation of his tubewell motor connection, is already subjudice. Neither the complainant nor the opposite parties have mentioned this fact in their pleadings. In the result, this complaint is partly accepted. The opposite parties are directed to pay two third of the amount deposited by the complainant to him after deducting cost of his transformer, if Satpal Singh S/o Karnail Singh has deposited any amount with them and the connection has to be released/already released to Satpal Singh from 11 KV line in question. The execution of this order shall be subject to the final adjudication of the aforesaid suit titled Satpal Vs. Balwinder Singh which is pending in the court of Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bathinda. Therefore, if final adjudication of that case is decided in favour of the complainant Balwinder Singh, this order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of that order otherwise this order shall remain unexecuted.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced 20-01-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
