Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/127

Gurmit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

27 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No :       127

Date of Institution : 9.09.2014

Date of Decision :   27.05.2015

 

Gurmit Singh aged about 40 years s/o Sukhdev Singh r/o village Maur, Tehsil  Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

....Complainant

Vs

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through Chairman cumManaging Director, The Mall Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Kotkapura.

.....Opposite Parties/Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

                Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

                Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 (A K Mehta, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand letter 1381 dt 25.06.2012 for Rs 39,846/-pertaining to a/c no. AP 17/0232 and for further seeking directions to Ops to pay compensation to the tune of Rs 30,000/-for causing harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having an electric connection bearing no. AP 17/0232 running in his land; that complainant received letter no. 1381 dt 25.06.2012 issued by OP-2, vide which demand for Rs 39,846/- is raised, which is illegal and excessive; that complainant applied for 5 BHP Tubewell connection under priority category in 2009 and OP issued demand notice and in compliance of demand notice, complainant completed all the formalities and deposited Rs 18,000/- vide receipt no. 185/80481 dt 15.06.2009 and thereafter, Tubewell connection of 5 BHP was released to complainant and now OP-2 has issued demand notice no. 1381 dt 25.06.2012 for Rs 39,846/- as cost of estimate for release of connection, which is quite illegal as complainant has already deposited amount of Rs 18,000/- and no extra demand can be raised as complainant has completed all the formalities as per demand notice; that on receiving the said letter, complainant immediately visited the office of OP-2 and requested him to withdraw the illegal demand but OP-2 refused to withdraw the same and threatened to disconnect the connection of complainant if the amount demanded in demand notice is not deposited with Ops, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and due to this act of the OPs, complainant has suffered great harassment and mental agony for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay compensation to the tune of Rs 30,000/-for causing harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence,  this complaint.

3                          Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 19.07.2012, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                        On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that Ops have constituted various Disputes Settlement committees to settle disputes between the parties, but complainant had not put his case before said committees and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, therefore, present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and reiterated that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. It is asserted that connection in question is working in the land of complainant and letter has been sent to complainant and complainant is called upon to deposit the amount; that connection was released to complainant under Family Partition Priority Category and connection was released to complainant out of turn and in such type of cases, the amount is to be charged on the bases of BHP /KW/KVA or actual expenditure/costs incurred therein, whichever is higher; that complainant deposited Rs 18,000/-, whereas the total cost as incurred was Rs 57,846/- and after deducting Rs 18,000/-, amount of Rs 39,846/-was found due and recoverable from the complainant and the letter was sent to complainant as per rules and regulations and as per commercial circulars issued by Ops from time to time; that said letter is valid and legal and is as per rules and moreover, at the time of release of connection, complainant had given undertaking that he would abide by the rules and regulations and instructions regarding release of connection and the present amount is still due and recoverable from complainant; that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                    Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and closed the same.

6                                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Harinder Singh Chahal Er Ex.OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-8 and closed the evidence.

7                            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on file.

8                            Ld Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant applied for a Tubewell connection and when the turn of complainant arrived, Ops issued a demand notice Ex C-4 dt 12.06.2009 requiring the complainant to deposit the requisite amount and to also comply with the other terms and conditions of the demand notice. He contended that in pursuance of demand notice Ex C-4, complainant deposited amount of Rs 18,000/- vide receipt Ex C-3 and also complied with the other formalities mentioned in the demand notice and accordingly, Ops issued a Service Connection Order Ex C-5, which was complied with and Tubewell connection started working. He contended that later on Ops/PSPCL issued a fresh notice Ex C-2 dt 25.06.2012 requiring the complainant to deposit amount of Rs 39,846/-, failing which his Tubewell connection would be disconnected. He contended that the Ops have illegally issued this demand notice after a period of more than 1 ½ year. He contended that the Regulation 15.7 and 17.3 and commercial circular no. 28/10 referred in the notice Ex C-2 are not applicable to the Tubewell connection in dispute because instructions 15.7 and 17.3 are included in Instructions Manual 2010 whereas Tubewell connection in dispute was issued in year 2009 and as such, these instructions are not applicable to the case in hand and moreover, instructions 15.7 and 17.03 are also not relevant in the matter in issue. He also contended that circular no. 28/2010 is dated 18.06.2010, whereas demand notice was issued on 12.06.2009 i.e much earlier to issuance of circular no. 28/2010. He further contended that as per Section 56.2 of Electricity Act, recovery cannot be effected from any person after two years and as such, demand notice is patently illegal and is an unfair trade practice and also amounts to deficiency in service and is liable to be struck down. He contended that complaint is required to be allowed and Ops are required to be directed to withdraw the illegal demand notice and to also pay compensation and litigation expenses mentioned in the complaint.

9                           The ld counsel for Ops contended that Tubewell connection in dispute falls under priority quota which is also not denied by the complainant.  He contended that admittedly,  Ops/Power Corporation initially issued a demand notice for Rs 18,000/-, which was deposited by the complainant but the  actual  cost  of      Tubewell  connection  was Rs. 57,846/- and  after    deducting                    already deposited amount of Rs 18,000/-, complainant was liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs 39,846/- and accordingly, the notice in dispute Ex C-2 was issued. He contended that complainant is liable to pay the actual cost incurred by the Ops/Power Corporation in installing the Tubewell connection and as such, OP is entitled to recover the remaining balance amount due from the complainant. He also contended that according to rule 9.1.1  of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Circular no. 28/2010, actual cost of installation of Tubewell connection is chargeable from the applicant and accordingly, the Ops have issued demand notice for the balance amount legally and correctly. He also contended that circular no. 28/2010 was issued on 18.06.2010 and the Tubewell connection in dispute was also released on 25.12.2010 as is mentioned on the Service Connection Order and as such, circular no. 28/2010 is fully applicable to the case in hand and as such, demand of Rs 39,846/- is legal and correctly made from the complainant and complaint is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.

10                                       It is admitted fact that complainant applied for tube well connection in the year 2009 under priority category as mentioned in the complaint. It is also admitted fact that after considering the application of the complainant, the Ops/Power Corporation ordered to release the Tubewell connection to the complainant and accordingly, issued a demand notice dt 12.06.2009 requiring the complainant to deposit Rs 18,000/- as service connection charges and also required to comply with the other requirements of the demand notice. It is also admitted fact that complainant complied with the demand notice and deposited amount of Rs 18,000/-vide receipt Ex C-3 and also complied with the other conditions and accordingly, Ops/Power Corporation released Service Connection Order Ex C-5 and the same was complied with and Tubewell connection was released to the complainant. It is also admitted fact that later on Ops/Power Corporation issued fresh notice no 1381 dt 25.06.2012 Ex C-2 requiring the complainant to deposit the remaining amount of Rs 39,846/-as per Regulation No. 15.7 and 17.3 of Electricity Supply Manual Instructions and commercial circular no. 28/2010. The contention of the complainant is that the demand notice Ex C-2 has been illegally issued as Ops cannot issue a demand notice at such a belated stage, when the Tubewell connection has been released in the year 2010 and after compliance of terms and conditions of the demand notice by the complainant though contention of the Ops/Power Corporation is that the Ops can recover the actual cost of the Tubewell connection and if less amount is deposited earlier, then the difference between the actual cost and deposited amount is recoverable. Admittedly, the Tubewell connection in dispute was released in the year 2010. Ops/Power Corporation before release of Tubewell connection, issued a demand notice dt 12.06.2009 Ex C-4 requiring the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs 18,000/-as Service Connection charges and to also comply with the other conditions. Complainant deposited the required sum and also complied with other conditions of the demand notice and thereafter, Service Connection Order Ex C-5 dt 7.12.2010 was issued for release of Tubewell connection, which was installed on 25.12.2010. Ops/Power Corporation have now issued a fresh demand notice dt 25.06.2012 Ex C-2 requiring the complainant to deposit the additional amount of Rs 39,846/- as per Regulation No. 15.1 and 17.3 of Electricity Supply Manual Instructions and commercial circular no. 28/2010 referred in  demand notice dt 25.06.2012 Ex C-2. Instruction 15.7 is not relevant as it relates to issuance of domestic connection to employees of PSPCL at a new place of posting. Instruction 15.1 provides that Ops/Power Corporation is entitled to recover cost in accordance with the Regulation 9 of the Supply Code.

11                         Admittedly, the connection in dispute is a Tubewell connection relating to the agriculture. Clause (ii) of 9.1.1 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission notification dt 29.06.2007 provides that if an agriculture pump set connection is issued to applicant, then the charges as per BHP/KW approved by the commission would be recoverable if the length of service line is only up to 500 meters and the actual cost is recoverable if the length of service line is more than 500 meters. The contention of the Ops/Power Corporation is that the actual cost is recoverable from the complainant whereas contention of the complainant is that the actual cost is not recoverable as the length of the service line was less than 500 meters and the charges as per BHP/KW are recoverable. The Ops/Power Corporation have proved site plan of the Tubewell connection Ex OP-5 which shows that the length of the service connection line was 10 meters and in this eventuality, actual cost is not recoverable from the complainant rather the charges as per BHP/KW are recoverable. In this eventuality, the actual cost is not recoverable as contended by the Ops/Power Corporation in fresh demand notice Ex C-2. Otherwise also, the initial demand notice was issued by the Ops/Power Corporation on 12.06.2009, definitely the Tubewell connection in dispute was released after laying the service line and Tubewell connection was made operative on 25.12.2010. In this eventuality, the Ops/Power Corporation should have recovered the balance payment if any, before the release of the Tubewell connection whereas the Ops/Power Corporation issued the supplementary demand notice on 25.06.2012 i.e after 1 ½ year from the release of Tubewell connection in dispute. Ops/Power Corporation have also proved estimate of the Tubewell connection Ex OP-4 but it contains many overwriting and is not reliable. The instruction no. 17.3 relates to validity period of demand notice and as such is not relevant to the matter in dispute. Moreover, commercial notification no. 28/2010 was issued on 18.06.2010 whereas, the first demand notice was issued on 12.06.2009 and as such, the conditions as applicable on the date of issue of demand notice, are applicable to the case in hand and as such, commercial circular no. 28/2010 issued on 18.06.2010 is not applicable to the case in hand. Moreover, even this commercial circular no. 28/2010 is not applicable to the case in hand as the length of the service connection line is less than 500 meters as provided in Clause (ii) of 9.1.1 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission notification dt 29.06.2007. As such, the Ops/Power Corporation has illegally issued supplementary demand notice ExC-2 and is liable to be struck down. Complainant requested the Ops/Power Corporation to withdraw the demand notice Ex C-2 dt 25.06.2012, but with no effect and ultimately, complainant had to file the complaint in hand and it must have caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses.

12                In the light of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with cost and it is held that demand notice Ex C-2 dt 25.06.2012 has been illegally issued by the Ops/Power Corporation and is struck down and complainant is held entitled to recover Rs 2000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs 1000/-as litigation expenses within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 27.05.2015

 

                   Member                   Member                President                    (Parampal Kaur)                 (P Singla)            (A K Mehta)