Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1290/2015

Raj Mohinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Mohit Jain

28 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                              

                                                                   Complaint no. 1290                                                                                              

                                                                   Instituted on:  14.10.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    28.07.2016

 

Raj Mohinder Singh aged about 41 years son of  Sh. Dalip Singh, resident of village Niamatpur, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                   …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

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

2.        AEE,SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,  Sub Division, Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkota.                                                       ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT    :       Shri  Rohit Jain,  Advocate                          

 

FOR THE  OPP. PARTIES      :       Shri Inderjit Ausht,  Advocate

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Raj Mohinder  Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that in the year  1990  Dalip Singh father of the complainant applied for electric connection  and same was sanctioned with load  of 5 BHP and  Dalip Singh spent Rs.25000/-  on the same.  In 2006, father of the complainant applied for transfer the said connection in the name of the complainant which was transferred.  In the year 2008,  the complainant applied for  enhancement of load of the said connection from 5 BHP to 7.5BHP and paid Rs.3000/-  and later on load was enhanced from 7.5 BHP to 12.5 BHP.  In the year 2013  the OPs  told the complainant that they will disconnect the said connection  for which  Civil suit number 62  dated 19.02.2013 which was withdrawn as per the statement made by learned counsel for defendants.  On 07.10.2015 the officials of the OPs disconnected the said electric motor connection. The complainant made so many requests to the OPs not to disconnect the said connection but   

all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-  i) OPs be directed to reinstall/reconnect/ restore the said electric connection of the complainant  ii)  OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       In reply filed by OPs, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, suppression of material facts and cause of action have been taken up. On merits,  it has been stated that the  complainant Dalip singh applied  the AP electric connection in the year 1990  but the same was obtained by concealing  the true facts that he has no land when as per verification dated 30.09.2015 given by revenue department  Dalip Singh has  no land as per jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 of village Niamatpur.  It is denied that Dalip Singh was owner of 30 Bighs of land.  The AP connection was disconnected  through PDCO dated 17.08.2007.  Thereafter one  Hakam Singh son of Dalip Singh r/o  village Niamatpura submitted an application on 30.09.2015  in the office of Addl. S.E.  Operation Division Nabha in which it was mentioned that Dalip Singh has no land when the connection was released. Thereafter  revenue department  submitted the report  that as per Jamabandi 2000/2001  Dalip singh is not owner of land in the Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001. After receiving the report, AEE Commercial Sub Division PSPCL Nabha  wrote a letter number 3536 dated 30.09.2015 to Addl. S.E.Operation Division Nabha. Thereafter Addl.S.E. Operation Division Nabha wrote a letter number 63481 dated 7.10.2015 regarding disconnecting the supply.  After receiving the above said letter the OP no.2  issued PDCO number 99/1120 dated 07.10.2015 regarding disconnecting the disputed AP electric connection and same was effected.  As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.             In his evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-26  and closed evidence.

4.             We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments of the learned counsel  of both the parties. We find that  the only question which arises in this case is whether  the  AP connection released to the complainant is legal or not?

5.             Learned counsel for the OPs has argued that one Hakam Singh son of Dalip Singh, brother of the complainant had moved an application on 30.09.2015 against the complainant and on his complaint, the OPs had taken report from  Naib Tehsildar Amargarh who submitted his report  that Dalip Singh was not the owner of the land at the time of issuing of the connection in dispute, so the connection was disconnected under Section II (3.3)  of the Electricity Supply Manual but  learned counsel for the complainant has argued that Dalip Singh was the owner of the land at that time.

6.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file we find that Dalip singh applied  for AP electric connection  in 19.02.1990  and  after that  demand notice  demanding some documents was issued and Dalip Singh submitted  the same i.e.  test report, challan dated 9.4.2001, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1995-96 and for the year 2000-2001 and deposited  service connection charges. The OPs  had disconnected the said connection on the  basis of report of Revenue Department wherein it has been mentioned that as per the Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 Dalip singh was not the owner of the land. Dalip singh had submitted the said jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 on 9.4.2001  and  since then  the same was in the knowledge and possession of the OPs. Moreover, it is duty of the OPs to verify at the very time of issuing/ releasing the connection that whether the applicant is owner of the land or not and after verification if it was found that the Dalip Singh was not the owner of the land as per Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 then the connection was not released to the complainant at that time. Further, Dalip Singh had applied for change of the said connection in the name of the complainant and same was transferred in the name of the complainant  and further the complainant got the load enhanced from the Ops and at that time also the OPs issued a notice to the general public  through News paper Nawan Zamana  but nobody came forward. The OPs have stated that  complainant  has filed  an affidavit  that he is getting the connection in his land but in the affidavit no Khasra number is mentioned  in which he is getting the connection. 

7.             Another aspect of the case is that the OPs had disconnected the AP electric connection of the complainant on the basis of Section -II (3.3) of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual  of which First Edition  was  published in 2010 whereas the connection was released to the complainant on 2001.  Moreover, the OPs have failed produce the instructions on basis of which the connection was released to the complainant. The OPs have  submitted written statement  in civil suit which is Ex.C-7  in which the OPs have admitted that the OPs have no right to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant.

8.             In our opinion if the connection was released to the Dalip singh after completing proper formalities and thorough verification at the time of issuing the connection, we feel that it is valid and legal connection. Moreover,  the instructions of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual ( First Edition 2010)  cannot be retrospective  applicable in the year 2001.

9.             From the above discussion, we feel that the OPs have illegally disconnected the AP electric connection of the complainant, so the same is ordered to be restored. The complainant be compensated with costs of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental pain,  harassment and litigation expenses.

10.           This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                     

                Announced

                July 28, 2016

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)                                      (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member                                                 President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-