DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 306 of 14-07-2010

Decided on : 21-12-2010

Harcharanjit Singh aged about 40 years S/o Mukhtiar Singh, R/o Ram Nagar, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its

   M.D./CMD/Chairman

2. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Urban Sub Division, Maur

3. Harjeet Singh S/o Hardev Singh R/o Village Ram Nagar, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

4. Jagseer Singh S/o Wazir Singh R/o Village Ram Nagar, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

   ..... 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 P S Brar, counsel for the

opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.

Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 & 4.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The electric connection No. RN -827 was released to the complainant for irrigating his land under OYT category. The complainant deposited huge amount of Rs. 96,128/- with opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 for getting the connection. The line given by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 is solely of the complainant as he got the connection by paying for 11 KV line, Transformer etc., The connection was released to him on 13-10-2009. As per policy of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 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. As per rules, if anybody wants to get the new connection, he has to pay his share of the deposited amount. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 got the amount from opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 and gave the connection from 11 KV line of the complainant. The complainant alleged that he is entitled to get the share from the opposite parties if they want to retain the common line otherwise the opposite parties are not entitled to get the benefit. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 gave the connection forcibly and illegally to opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 without paying the share to the complainant. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to disconnect the tubewell connections of opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 or opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 be directed to give share of personal line of the complainant to him and the opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation and costs.

2. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 filed their separate written statement and admitted that complainant has deposited Rs. 96,128/- and the connection was released to him on 13-10-2009. It has been submitted that the release of connection to the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 was the result of understanding between the complainant and opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 and opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have no concern with the same. At the time of releasing the connection to opposite party Nos. 3 & 4, the complainant has never objected to the fact of releasing the connection to opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. Now, he has no right to file the complaint. If the complainant has any right to get the share, he can get the same recovered from opposite party Nos. 3 & 4.

3. The opposite party No. 3 in his separate written statement has submitted that he applied for tubewell connection under OYT scheme on 30-8-2007 i.e. prior to complainant. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 prepared an estimate and issued demand notice to him vide letter No. 6709 dated 28-5-09 requiring him to deposit an amount of Rs. 88,803/- which was deposited by him through demand draft No. 872822 dated 3.6.09 vide receipt No. 596 dated 4.6.09. The tubewell connection was released to opposite party No. 3 but thereafter on 27-1-2010, the complainant in-connivance with opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 disconnected his electric connection. The opposite party No. 3 filed complaint before this Forum and during the pendency of the complaint, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 reconnected his electric connection. So, the complaint filed by him became infructuous and he withdrew the same.

4. The opposite party No. 4 in his separate written statement submitted that he has deposited an amount of Rs. 65,405/- with opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 as cost of material for getting the connection from 11 KV line, Distribution Transformer and service cable etc., and the electric connection was released to him. He has denied that complainant is entitled to get any share from him.

5. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings.

6. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

7. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that connection No. RN 827 was released to the complainant under OYT category. The line has been given by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 solely to the complainant as he got this line from special scheme by spending a huge sum of Rs. 96,128/- and the connection was released on 13-10-2009. As per policy of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, line of the complainant is to be maintained by complainant for two years. The complainant alleged that nobody can get the connection from his personal line during this period. If anybody wants to get new connection from his personal line, he has to pay share of the deposited amount to the complainant as he had paid for the entire material for getting the connection from 11 KV line, Distribution Transformer and Service Cable etc., The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have forcibly given the connection from his 11 KV line to opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. The complainant had requested opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 to pay their share of cost of electric line which was erected by the complainant personally.

8. The learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 submitted that the release of connection to opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 are the result of understanding between the complainant and opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 and they have no concern with the same. At the time of releasing the connection to opposite party No. 3 & 4, the complainant had never objected the fact of releasing the connection to them.

   The learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 submitted that he had applied for tubewell connection under OYT scheme on 30-08-2007 i.e. prior to the complainant. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 prepared an estimate and issued demand notice to the complainant vide letter No. 6709 dated 28-05-2009 requiring opposite party No. 3 to deposit an amount of Rs. 88,803/- which was deposited by him through demand draft No. 872822 dated 3.6.2009 vide receipt No. 596 dated 4.6.2009 and the tubewell connection was released to opposite party No. 3. Thereafter on 27-01-2010, the complainant in-connivance with opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 disconnected the electric connection of opposite party No. 3. He had filed complaint under Section 12 of the 'Act' before this Forum and during the pendency of complaint, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 reconnected the electricity connection. The complaint filed by opposite party No. 3 became infructuous and the same was withdrawn on 6-7-2010. The complainant was also a party in that complaint but he never raised any objection at that time. Now, the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 further submitted that opposite party No. 3 also deposited the cost of material for getting the connection from 11 KV line, Distribution Transformer and Service Cable etc., The opposite party No. 3 denied the fact that line of the complainant is personal and nobody can get connection without paying share to the complainant.

   The learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 has submitted that he applied for the tubewell connection on 17.4.2008 under OYT scheme. The opposite party No. 1 prepared an estimate and issued demand notice to the complainant vide letter dated 4.6.2009. The opposite party No. 4 deposited an amount of Rs. 65,405/- with opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 . The tubewell connection was released to opposite party No. 4 on 25-11-2009. The opposite party No. 4 also denied the fact that line is of the complainant for two years. He had also paid for cost of material for getting the connection from 11 KV line, Distribution Transformer and Service Cable etc., The opposite party No. 4 had denied that complainant is entitled for getting any share from opposite party No. 4.

9. The complainant has deposited Rs. 96,128/- with opposite party No. 1 & 2 on 8-6-2009 vide Ex. C-4 and the connection was released to him on 13-10-2009. The opposite party No. 3 deposited Rs. 88,803/- through demand draft dated 3-6-2009 and the connection was released and thereafter disconnected on 27-01-2010. The opposite party No. 3 Harjeet Singh, filed complaint before this Forum and Harcharanjit Singh (now complainant) was opposite party No. 4 in that complaint. During the pendency of the complaint, opposite party No. 3 recorded statement and withdrew the complaint. The opposite party No. 4 deposited Rs. 65,405/- with opposite party No. 1 & 2 and the connection was released to him. 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 09/2001 para No. 7

“The replacement of the damaged T/F shall be the responsibility of the consumer. The scheme shall be operative through out the Punjab State & shall remain inforce upto 31-3-2001 from the date of issue of this circular.”

Commercial Circular No. 46/2000 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.

vii) The prospective consumer shall get their line/sub -station erected/constructed from the private contractor approved by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab Government. However, the concerned Sub-divisional Officer/Operation will verify the test report regarding construction/erection of line/Sub-station, as per Indian Electricity Act/Indian Standards.”

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.”

5. A perusal of above mentioned circulars reveals that two or more applicants can share the cost of 11 KV line. However, they shall be using transformer for their respective tubewells. In the present case, connection of opposite party No. 3 & 4 have been connected with the transformer of the complainant by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, without his consent in violation of their own rules and regulations. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

6. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1000/- as compensation and cost against opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to refund 1/3^rd amount i.e. 32,042/- as his share of 11 KV line from the sum deposited by him. The opposite party No. 1 & 2 are further directed to charge maintenance charges for two years, of the 11 KV line in question, in equal share from complainant and opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance the aforesaid amount of Rs. 32,042/- will yield interest @9% P.A. till realisation.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced

21-12-2010

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)


 

CC No. 306 of 14-07-2010

Decided on : 21-12-2010


 

Harcharanjit Singh aged about 40 years S/o Mukhtiar Singh, R/o Ram Nagar, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus


 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its

   M.D./CMD/Chairman

2. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Urban Sub Division, Maur

3. Harjeet Singh S/o Hardev Singh R/o Village Ram Nagar, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

4. Jagseer Singh S/o Wazir Singh R/o Village Ram Nagar, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

   ..... 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 P S Brar, counsel for the

opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.

Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 & 4.


 

O R D E R


 

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT


 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The electric connection No. RN -827 was released to the complainant for irrigating his land under OYT category. The complainant deposited huge amount of Rs. 96,128/- with opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 for getting the connection. The line given by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 is solely of the complainant as he got the connection by paying for 11 KV line, Transformer etc., The connection was released to him on 13-10-2009. As per policy of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 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. As per rules, if anybody wants to get the new connection, he has to pay his share of the deposited amount. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 got the amount from opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 and gave the connection from 11 KV line of the complainant. The complainant alleged that he is entitled to get the share from the opposite parties if they want to retain the common line otherwise the opposite parties are not entitled to get the benefit. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 gave the connection forcibly and illegally to opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 without paying the share to the complainant. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to disconnect the tubewell connections of opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 or opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 be directed to give share of personal line of the complainant to him and the opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation and costs.

2. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 filed their separate written statement and admitted that complainant has deposited Rs. 96,128/- and the connection was released to him on 13-10-2009. It has been submitted that the release of connection to the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 was the result of understanding between the complainant and opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 and opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have no concern with the same. At the time of releasing the connection to opposite party Nos. 3 & 4, the complainant has never objected to the fact of releasing the connection to opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. Now, he has no right to file the complaint. If the complainant has any right to get the share, he can get the same recovered from opposite party Nos. 3 & 4.

3. The opposite party No. 3 in his separate written statement has submitted that he applied for tubewell connection under OYT scheme on 30-8-2007 i.e. prior to complainant. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 prepared an estimate and issued demand notice to him vide letter No. 6709 dated 28-5-09 requiring him to deposit an amount of Rs. 88,803/- which was deposited by him through demand draft No. 872822 dated 3.6.09 vide receipt No. 596 dated 4.6.09. The tubewell connection was released to opposite party No. 3 but thereafter on 27-1-2010, the complainant in-connivance with opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 disconnected his electric connection. The opposite party No. 3 filed complaint before this Forum and during the pendency of the complaint, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 reconnected his electric connection. So, the complaint filed by him became infructuous and he withdrew the same.

4. The opposite party No. 4 in his separate written statement submitted that he has deposited an amount of Rs. 65,405/- with opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 as cost of material for getting the connection from 11 KV line, Distribution Transformer and service cable etc., and the electric connection was released to him. He has denied that complainant is entitled to get any share from him.

5. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings.

6. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

7. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that connection No. RN 827 was released to the complainant under OYT category. The line has been given by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 solely to the complainant as he got this line from special scheme by spending a huge sum of Rs. 96,128/- and the connection was released on 13-10-2009. As per policy of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, line of the complainant is to be maintained by complainant for two years. The complainant alleged that nobody can get the connection from his personal line during this period. If anybody wants to get new connection from his personal line, he has to pay share of the deposited amount to the complainant as he had paid for the entire material for getting the connection from 11 KV line, Distribution Transformer and Service Cable etc., The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have forcibly given the connection from his 11 KV line to opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. The complainant had requested opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 to pay their share of cost of electric line which was erected by the complainant personally.

8. The learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 submitted that the release of connection to opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 are the result of understanding between the complainant and opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 and they have no concern with the same. At the time of releasing the connection to opposite party No. 3 & 4, the complainant had never objected the fact of releasing the connection to them.

   The learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 submitted that he had applied for tubewell connection under OYT scheme on 30-08-2007 i.e. prior to the complainant. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 prepared an estimate and issued demand notice to the complainant vide letter No. 6709 dated 28-05-2009 requiring opposite party No. 3 to deposit an amount of Rs. 88,803/- which was deposited by him through demand draft No. 872822 dated 3.6.2009 vide receipt No. 596 dated 4.6.2009 and the tubewell connection was released to opposite party No. 3. Thereafter on 27-01-2010, the complainant in-connivance with opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 disconnected the electric connection of opposite party No. 3. He had filed complaint under Section 12 of the 'Act' before this Forum and during the pendency of complaint, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 reconnected the electricity connection. The complaint filed by opposite party No. 3 became infructuous and the same was withdrawn on 6-7-2010. The complainant was also a party in that complaint but he never raised any objection at that time. Now, the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 further submitted that opposite party No. 3 also deposited the cost of material for getting the connection from 11 KV line, Distribution Transformer and Service Cable etc., The opposite party No. 3 denied the fact that line of the complainant is personal and nobody can get connection without paying share to the complainant.

   The learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 has submitted that he applied for the tubewell connection on 17.4.2008 under OYT scheme. The opposite party No. 1 prepared an estimate and issued demand notice to the complainant vide letter dated 4.6.2009. The opposite party No. 4 deposited an amount of Rs. 65,405/- with opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 . The tubewell connection was released to opposite party No. 4 on 25-11-2009. The opposite party No. 4 also denied the fact that line is of the complainant for two years. He had also paid for cost of material for getting the connection from 11 KV line, Distribution Transformer and Service Cable etc., The opposite party No. 4 had denied that complainant is entitled for getting any share from opposite party No. 4.

9. The complainant has deposited Rs. 96,128/- with opposite party No. 1 & 2 on 8-6-2009 vide Ex. C-4 and the connection was released to him on 13-10-2009. The opposite party No. 3 deposited Rs. 88,803/- through demand draft dated 3-6-2009 and the connection was released and thereafter disconnected on 27-01-2010. The opposite party No. 3 Harjeet Singh, filed complaint before this Forum and Harcharanjit Singh (now complainant) was opposite party No. 4 in that complaint. During the pendency of the complaint, opposite party No. 3 recorded statement and withdrew the complaint. The opposite party No. 4 deposited Rs. 65,405/- with opposite party No. 1 & 2 and the connection was released to him. 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 09/2001 para No. 7

“The replacement of the damaged T/F shall be the responsibility of the consumer. The scheme shall be operative through out the Punjab State & shall remain inforce upto 31-3-2001 from the date of issue of this circular.”

Commercial Circular No. 46/2000 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.

vii) The prospective consumer shall get their line/sub -station erected/constructed from the private contractor approved by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab Government. However, the concerned Sub-divisional Officer/Operation will verify the test report regarding construction/erection of line/Sub-station, as per Indian Electricity Act/Indian Standards.”

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.”

5. A perusal of above mentioned circulars reveals that two or more applicants can share the cost of 11 KV line. However, they shall be using transformer for their respective tubewells. In the present case, connection of opposite party No. 3 & 4 have been connected with the transformer of the complainant by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, without his consent in violation of their own rules and regulations. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

6. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1000/- as compensation and cost against opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to refund 1/3^rd amount i.e. 32,042/- as his share of 11 KV line from the sum deposited by him. The opposite party No. 1 & 2 are further directed to charge maintenance charges for two years, of the 11 KV line in question, in equal share from complainant and opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance the aforesaid amount of Rs. 32,042/- will yield interest @9% P.A. till realisation.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced

21-12-2010

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President


 

 

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

 

 

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member