DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC. No. 400 of 06-09-2010 Decided on : 26-11-2010
Natha Singh aged 70 years S/o Chet Singh, R/o Village Nathana, District Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through Sr. Xen/D.S. Bhagta Bhai Ka S.D.O./D.S. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Nathana, 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 : Complainant in person For the Opposite parties : Sh. R.D. Goyal, counsel for the opposite parties.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a small farmer and is earning his livelihood from the agricultural land. On 30-06-2010 his tubewell became out of order. The complainant alleged that sanction of two electric motors were given by the opposite parties on his transformer out of which one was in the name of the complainant and the another was in the name of his brother. Since it was necessary to irrigate his crop, he shifted the motor which was of his brother to his tubewell to irrigate his crop. On the same day, a team of the officials of the opposite parties visited his fields and asked him that he is committing theft of energy. The complainant requested that another motor is also a sanctioned one and belongs to his brother but the officials of the opposite parties raised objection that without taking permission electric motor cannot be shifted from one place to another. The complainant requested them that he was unaware of this fact and he has not done the same intentionally. The complainant alleged that he has earlier filed his request with Deputy Chief Engineer of the opposite parties and he after considering his request reduced the amount demanded from Rs. 58,350/- to Rs. 29,175/-. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties charged the penalty for one year whereas govt. has ordered to sow the cotton crop after 15-06-2010. Thus, keeping in view of the order of the government, cotton crop was sown by the complainant after 20-06-2010 and the opposite parties have charged the penalty on 30-06-2010. Hence, he has filed this complaint seeking direction of this Forum to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs. 29,175/-. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and submitted that the connection of the complainant was checked by the Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement), Mukatsar in the presence of the complainant and at the time of checking it was found that at Point 'B' in the site plan in the room of meter where the fitting was made for the supply of electricity to tube well, after installing 2 number switch starter and laying 2 separate wire, there was running 10 BHP motor and 7.5 BHP motor without any sanction of the opposite parties. The checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant who signed the checking report without any objection. On the basis of checking, provisional order of assessment dated 5-7-2010 was issued to the complainant for deposit of Rs. 58,350/- against which the complainant filed objections before the Deputy Chief Engineer and after hearing him, it was decided that 7.50 BHP motor was running illegally but the period of penalty was reduced from 12 months to 6 months. The opposite parties have pleaded that on the basis of that order, complainant is bound to pay/deposit the amount with him as the complainant has no right to remove the motor from the place where it was installed, without getting sanction of the competent authority/opposite parties. The parties have led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. We have heard the arguments at length and have gone through the record and perused written submissions submitted by the parties. The connection of the complainant was checked by the Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement), Mukatsar vide Ex. R-3 and it was found that at point 'B' in the site plan in the room of meter where the fitting was made for the supply of electricity to tubewell, after installing 2 number switch starter and laying 2 separate wire, two motors were running i.e. one of 10 BHP and the other of 7.5 BHP, without any sanction of the opposite parties. On the basis of this checking report, the provisional order of assessment was issued to the complainant for deposit of Rs. 58,350/- against which the complainant filed objections before Deputy Chief Engineer and after hearing the complainant, his penalty was reduced from 12 months to six months. Regulation No. 37.4.3 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007 of P.S.E.B. envisage that :- “Shifting/clubbing of tube well connection if necessitated due to low water table shall be allowed after recovering the actual cost involved in such shifting at the new site including dismantlement of old service line and the augmentation/installation of new transformer if any, without any condition of recovering minimum charges of Rs. 5,000/-” The complainant has shifted his electric motor to the new site without obtaining sanction of the opposite parties. Although no rules and regulations have been supplied to the complainant at the time of release of electric connection for tubewell yet this lapse, if any committed by the complainant, without malafide intention, does not amount to theft of energy as he has taken sanction of both the motors and he has been paying the electricity bills regularly. Thus, in view of the above said regulation No. 37.4.3 of the opposite parties, they are entitled to charge only Rs. 5,000/-from the complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising demand of Rs. 29,175/- from the complainant without any base. Hence, this complaint is partly accepted without any order as to cost and the impugned demand raised vide memo No. 474 dated 5.7.2010 Ex. R-6, is hereby quashed. However, the opposite parties are at liberty to recover the amount of Rs. 5,000/- only from the complainant as per their own rules.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced : 26-11-2010 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
