Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/168

Mangal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        168

Date of Institution :  26.11.2015

Date of Decision :    10.06.2016

 

Mangal Singh aged about 23 years s/o Gurtej Singh, r/o Bambiha Bhai, Tehsil Bagha Purana, District Moga.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

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

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, DS Sub Division, PSPCL, Bargari.

   .........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 Rajneesh Garg, 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 them to release new domestic connection applied on 1.10.2014 and to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he applied for new domestic electric connection in his house, where he is residing and he deposited Rs.1500/-as security and other charges vide receipt no. 0021/0019 dt 1.10.2014 and completed all the formalities and submitted all requisite documents as per instructions issued by OPs and as and when demanded by them, but despite completing all formalities, giving various representations and even after several requests, OPs did not release the connection to him, rather issued connection to that person, who applied after the complainant. Complainant visited OP-2, where official of OPs namely Jaswinder Singh ALM and Baldev Singh J.E. demanded Rs.5,000/-as illegal gratification from complainant for releasing the new electric connection to him. Complainant also moved applications to concerned authorities against this illegal demand of aforesaid officials,  but Ops neither took any action against them nor released electric connection to him, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to release new electric connection to complainant and prayed to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                   Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 2.12.2015, 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 OPs have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the dispute between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before such committee and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that complainant is not the consumer of OPs. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs asserted that the place where he wants to get installed the new electric connection does not belong to him. It is further averred that application of complainant was forwarded to concerned JE of area, who visited the site and found that connection is already installed and is working in the house of complainant and thus, second connection in same premises can not be installed. Complainant wanted to get installed the second connection at place, of which he is not the owner. Moreover, complainant has supplied caste certificate and the place where he wants to get installed the new connection belongs to Jat Sikh family and therefore, connection at that place can not be installed. Complainant was duly informed about this fact through letter. It is further contended that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands as he has concealed the true facts and has tried to misuse the process of law. It is reiterated that 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 and documents Ex C-2 to 6 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Mandeep Singh SDO as Ex OP-4 and documents Ex OP-1 to OP-3 and closed the evidence.

7                                    The ld Counsel for complainant vehementally  argued that complainant applied for new domestic electric connection for his house, where he is residing and deposited Rs.1500/-as security and other charges vide receipt dt 1.10.2014 and completed all the formalities and submitted all requisite documents as per instructions issued by, but even after completing all formalities and several requests, OPs did not release the connection to him, rather issued connection to that person, who applied after the complainant. Complainant visited OP-2, where Jaswinder Singh ALM and Baldev Singh J.E. demanded Rs.5,000/-as illegal gratification from complainant for releasing the new electric connection. Complainant also moved applications to concerned authorities against this illegal demand of aforesaid officials, all in vain. Ops neither took any action against them nor released electric connection to him, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and trade mal practice on their part and due to this, complainant has suffered great mental tension and harassment. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

8                              To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this case. The Ops have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees and complainant should approach such committees to settle his dispute, so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that complainant is not the consumer of OPs and asserted that the place where he wants to get installed the new electric connection does not belong to him. It is further averred that application of complainant was forwarded to concerned JE of area, who visited the site and found that connection is already installed and is working in the house of complainant and thus, second connection in same premises can not be allowed. Complainant wanted to get installed the second connection at place, of which he is not the owner. Moreover, complainant has supplied caste certificate and the place where he wants to get installed the new connection belongs to Jat Sikh family and therefore, connection at that place cannot be installed. Complainant was duly informed about this fact through letter. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations are denied and asserted that complainant has filed this false and frivolous complainant against the OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

9                                     We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

10                                     The case of the complainant is that he applied for a new domestic electric connection in his house on 1.10.2014 and deposited the requisite fees with Ops and completed all the formalities for the same, but the OPs did not release the electric connection to him, rather issued connection to the persons who applied after the complainant. In reply, the OPs submitted that on the place, where complainant wants to get installed the new electric connection does not belong to him and the electric connection under subsidised rates for SC category is already issued in the name of complainant and he wants 2^nd connection in the premises which are not owned by him. Moreover, in that premises, the electric connection is already running so, new electric connection can not be issued to complainant as per rules. The ld counsel for complainant argued that place where he wants to install new connection is in his ownership, which he purchased from one Gurcharan Singh, who gave his affidavit to OPs that he has no objection if electric connection in the name of complainant is issued in that premises. In his support, he has placed on record copy of the affidavit Ex C-5 and also produced said Gurcharan Singh as witness before this Forum and tendered his affidavit as Ex C-3. In support of his contentions, Ld counsel for complainant has placed on record copy of Commercial Circular no. 5/2016 issued by Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd showing that submission of test report and proof of ownership document for release of loads upto 20KW for DS (Only Residential)connections is dispensed with. The simplified A&A form with declarations regarding ownership of premises and test report shall be applicable for release of domestic supply connection (only residential) up to 20KW as per attached Performa. Copy of the receipt vide which, complainant deposited fees with OPs is Ex C-4. Ops themselves produced copy of agreement of sale executed by Gurcharan Singh in favour of complainant regarding the site in dispute as Ex OP-1. He argued that there is no rule that 2^nd connection in the name of a person can not be issued. A person can take a number of connections in his name in his different properties. The earlier connection issued in the name of complainant is installed in his property and now he wants to have electric connection in his new house and OPs can not deny to issue electric connection to him.

11                                                      We have carefully gone through the file and evidence on record and arguments addressed by parties. There is no rule that more than one electric connection can not be issued in the name of a person. A person is at liberty to get different electric connections in his name at his different properties. So, the OPs can not deny issuance of electric connection to complainant on pretext that earlier connection is running in his name. Moreover, the objection of Ops is that earlier electric connection on subsidised rates under SC category is already issued in the name of complainant and as per rules, they can not issue 2^nd electric connection on subsidised rates. We are of considered opinion that if earlier electric connection on subsidised rates is issued in the name of complainant, then, in that case also, he can get new connection in general category. So, we are fully convinced with the arguments of complainant. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed.  The OPs are directed to issue new electric connection to complainant under general category if there is already an electric connection issued in the name of complainant on subsidised rates under SC category. Compliance of this order be made within one month 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 order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 10.06.2016

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