Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/182

Malkit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No :       182

Date of Institution : 22.12.2014

Date of Decision :   30.07.2015

 

Malkiat Singh aged about 55 years, s/o Niranjan Singh r/o Village Dhilwan Kalan, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.

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

   ...(Opposite Parties)Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh M S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

 (Ajit Aggarwal, 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 restore the supply to tubewell connection bearing a/c no. AP 07/0133 and for further directing OPs  to pay Rs 90,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant and Rs 5,000/-as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having electric tubewell connection bearing a/c no. AP 07/0133 of 7.5 BHP running in the land of complainant. It is contended that power to the said connection was being supplied from 25 KVA transformer of Jagroop Singh Wala by installing a pole. In May, 2014, Jagroop Singh, Sulakhan Singh and Beant Singh removed the cable through which was power was supplied to his tubewell connection and illegally shifted the electric pole to some other place. Complainant informed about this fact to OP-2 on 19.05.2014 by representation and requested to restore power supply to his tubewell connection bearing a/c no. AP 07/0133 and also requested to take action against said persons, who removed the cable of tubewell connection, but OP-2 failed to restore the power supply to his connection and thereafter, complainant again gave representation before OP-2 on 2.06.2014, but even then, supply was not restored to his connection. In December, 2014 aforementioned persons, cut the cable of complainant and took the same with them and also shifted the pole from one place to another in connivance with Satwinder Singh JE, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Complainant again gave representation before OP-2 on 10.12.2014 but despite his repeated requests, OPs have neither restored the power supply to his tubewell connection nor have taken any action against said persons, who illegally removed the cable and shifted the electric pole from one place to another. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused crop loss, harassment and mental tension to complainant. Complainant has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay Rs 90,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 5,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                   Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 23.12.2014, 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 complainant has not arrayed Jagroop Singh, Sulakhan Singh and Beant Singh as necessary parties in this complaint as main dispute is between complainant and Jagroop Singh. Thus, they are necessary parties and without impleading them, complainant is not maintainable. It is asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops and complaint filed by complainant is false, vague and incorrect. However, on merits, it is admitted that complainant moved an application on 19.05.2014 alleging that Jagroop Singh, Sulakhan Singh and Beant Singh removed the service cable and illegally shifted the pole and also prayed for restoring his connection. It is also admitted that complainant again submitted applications dt 2.06.2014 and 10.12.2014 reiterating the same allegations. It is contended that on 22.10.2014, Jagroop Singh filed application alleging that cable installed for giving connection to Malkiat Singh is very low and he can not harvest the crops with combine. He requested for setting right the service cable. On this, JE Satwinder Singh checked the site and made report dt 27.10.2014. Thereafter, Assistant Ex Er vide memo no. 2984 dt 3.11.2014 instructing Malkiat Singh and also issued memo to Jagroop singh to not to tamper with service cable, who again wrote application dt 7.11.2014 to OPs and on receipt of said application, whole matter was referred to Sr Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Kotkpaura. On receiving the application dt 10.12.2014 moved by complainant, Sh Balwinder Singh AEE visited the site of Transformer site of 25 KV at Jagroop Singh Wala and found 4 core cable lying on the ground and both the poles near motor and near transformer found in the same condition, as were installed earlier and found all the allegations levelled by complainant to be wrong and false. Thereafter, Jagroop Singh, Sulakhan Singh and Beant Singh were summoned and were asked if they had removed the wire and thrown on the ground or it was done by staff of Ops. They told that complainant himself has done so. It was told that complainant has already repeated this action. They  told OPs that complainant wants to take the land of Jagroop Singh and he is harassing them without any rhyme or reason. Thereafter, OPs issued memo no. 3277 dt 31.12.2014 to complainant, wherein stated that they have checked the spot and after enquiry found that complainant is intentionally wasting the precious time of PSPCL and complaint is without any basis. OPs brought before the Forum that complainant is creating mischief and dispute is between two parties         and complainant has filed the present complaint on false and frivolous grounds. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. 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 affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, affidavit of Jaswinder Singh s/o Dalip Singh as Ex C-2, affidavit of Satbir Singh s/o Jaswinder Singh Ex C-7 and documents Ex C-3 to 6 closed the same.

6                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh AEE Ex.OP-1 & Ex OP-14, affidavit of Harinder Singh Ex OP-13, affidavit of Satwinder Singh JE as Ex OP-15 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-12 and closed the evidence.

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

8                                        Ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant is a consumer of OPs having a tubewell connection with sanctioned load of 7.5 BHP installed in the land of complainant. The supply to the tubewell connection of the complainant was supplied from 25 KVA transformer called as Jagroop Singh Wala. In the month of May, 2014, Jagroop Singh, Sulakhan Singh and Beant Singh removed the service cable of the tubewell connection of the complainant and shifted the electric poles to some other place illegally in connivance with Satwinder Singh JE in the office of OP-2 and supply to the tubewell connection of the complainant was disconnected. The complainant informed OP-2 regarding this fact vide letter dated 19.05.2014 and requested them to restore his tubewell connection and to take action against above mentioned persons but OP-2 did not restore the electric supply to the tubewell connection of complainant. On it complainant again sent application dt 2.06.2014 to OP-2 and copy of the same was also sent to higher authorities but OPs did not take any action. In the month of December/2014, Jagroop Singh etc cut the cable of tubewell connection of complainant and took the cable with them illegally. Complainant again moved application dt 10.12.2014 to Ops and requested them to restore the electric supply to the tubewell connection of complainant and take legal action against Jagroop Singh and others, the copies of letters dt 19.05.2014, 2.06.2014 and 10.12.2014 are Ex C-4 to Ex C-6 respectively, but OPs neither restored the supply to the tubewell connection of complainant nor they took any action against persons who illegally disconnected the power supply of the tubewell connection of complainant. All this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and has caused harassment, mental agony and monitory loss to the complainant and he has prayed for accepting the claim.

9                            Ld Counsel for Ops contended that complainant is not the consumer of the OPs and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant filed the present complaint on wrong facts. However, they admitted that there is a tubewell connection in the name of complainant installed in his land by the OPs. They also admitted that on 19.05.2014, complainant filed an application that Jagroop Singh etc removed the service cable and shifted the electric poles from which electric supply was being supplied to the tubewell connection of complainant and also prayed for restoration of electric supply to his tubewell connection and for taking action against above mentioned persons. They also admitted that complainant submitted the application dt 2.06.2014 and 10.12.2014 repeating the same allegations. He argued that Jagroop Singh filed application on 22.10.2014 that cable installed for tubewell connection of Malkit Singh is very low and he cannot harvest his crop due to it and the service cable be set right. On it, Satwinder Singh JE, checked the site on 27.10.2014 and made report. Copy of the application is Ex OP-5. AEE vide his memo dt 3.11.2014 instructed the complainant as per report of JE, not to remove the cable of his tubewell connection and also issued a memo dt 4.11.2014 to Jagroop Singh and restrained him from tampering with service cable. Jagroop Singh again filed application dt 7.11.2014. On it, the matter was referred to Sr Executive Engineer. On the application of complainant dt 10.12.2014, Balwinder Singh A.E.E. visited the site and found service cable lying on the ground and both the poles near the motor and transformer are in right condition and the allegations made in the application that Jagroop Singh etc cut the wire and took it with them were found wrong. They summoned Jagroop Singh etc and enquired from them regarding the matter who told that service cable was removed by complainant himself. Ld counsel for OPs argued that in fact, there is a personal dispute between complainant and Jagroop Singh etc and due to it, complainant and Jagroop Singh removed the                   cable from the site. There is no fault on the part of OPs, rather due to their personal dispute, the precious time of the OPs and their staff is being wasted. OPs have never disconnected the electric supply to the tubewell connection of complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

10                                        It is admitted case of both the parties that there is a tubewell connection installed in the name of complainant in his land and power supply to the same is being supplied from the transformer namely Jagroop Singh Wala. It is also admitted case that on 19.05.2014, complainant filed an application that electric supply to his tubewell is disconnected and the same may be restored. It is further admitted that on 2.06.2014 and 10.12.2014, complainant also filed applications to OPs repeating the same allegations. There is no evidence on the part of OPs that on these applications, they took any action and electric supply to the tubewell connection of the complainant is restored, rather they are making allegations against complainant that he has himself removed the service cable of the electric tubewell connection, which carries no weight. The complainant has succeeded in proving his case. The act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are ordered to restore the electric supply to the tubewell connection of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated :  30.07.2015

                   Member                   Member               President                     (Parampal Kaur)                 (P Singla)           (Ajit Aggarwal)