Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/37/2016

Ranjit singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh jasvir singh

06 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2016

                                                            Date of institution:  30.03.2016                          

                                                                Date of decision  :   06.01.2017

Ranjit Singh son of Sh. Buland Singh R/o village Barwali Kalan, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala through its Chairman.
2. XEN Khanna of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited.
3. XEN (Enforcement) Khanna of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited.
4. SDO Bhari, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib, of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited.
5. R.A. Bhari, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib, of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited.

  …..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                   Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :        Sh.Prajit Singh, Adv. Cl. for the complainant                                              Sh. M.P.S.Batra, Adv. Cl. for the OPs.

 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Ranjit Singh son of Sh. Buland Singh R/o village Barwali Kalan, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                    The complainant became absolute owner in possession of land measuring 42K-12M after family partition of land measuring 134K-18M, which was jointly owned by him, Sukhdev Singh and Gurmeet Kaur. As no source of irrigation is installed in land allotted to the complainant, he applied for an electric motor connection of 7-1/2 BHP in his name under the "Family Partition Scheme". The complainant submitted all the requisite documents and completed all the formalities as per the requirements/demands of the OPs.  It is further stated that previously affidavits of other family members were submitted on 16.11.2012, but again affidavits of family members i.e. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and Sh. Sukhdev Singh, were submitted on 04.12.2012 as per the requirements of the OPs. After completing all the formalities the OPs instructed the complainant to dig the bore for installation of electric motor connection and demand notice dated 21.03.2013 was issued to the complainant.  Thereafter, as per requirements of OPs the complainant deposited Rs.1600/- vide receipt No.114 dated 20.03.2013, Rs.88873/- vide receipt No.102 dated 26.02.2014 with the OPs. The complainant also deposited Rs.500/- on 26.02.2014 in the account of OPs vide challan dated 26.02.2014 as per their instructions. The complainant has spent Rs.2,50,000/- approximately for the installation of electric tubewell connection. After completion of all the formalities, a memo No.755 dated 23.09.2015 was issued by OP No.4 illegally, which was adequately replied by the complainant, vide reply dated 01.10.2015. In reply the complainant stated that the objector Sukhdev Singh has himself issued the affidavit in favour of complainant. Thereafter, the OP's S.D.O, concerned Clerk and R.A. in connivance with Sukhdev Singh son of Buland Singh removed the affidavit dated 04.12.2012 submitted by Sukhdev Singh in favour of the complainant from the original file. Thereafter OP No.4 issued memo No.849 dated 13.11.2015, vide which it demanded the original affidavit of Sukhdev Singh. The complainant again replied, vide reply dated 01.12.2015, that the original affidavit was himself submitted by Sh. Sukhdev Singh with the OPs alongwith the original affidavit of Gurmeet Kaur on dated 04.12.2012. As per rules under family partition category no affidavits are required as they ceased to be the co-sharer immediately, after partition. But OP No.4 has issued the letter No.390 dated 21.03.2016, ignoring all the rules of prudence and natural justice. The OPs has not released the electric tubewell connection under "Family Partition Category" despite completing all the necessary formalities by the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs have no right to convert the application of the complainant from "family partition category" to "general category" at fag end without providing any opportunity of hearing to the complainant. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to release the electric tubewell connection under "Family Partition Category" and further to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,00,000/- as damages on account of deficiency in service.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint the OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is beyond the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act; the complainant has no legal right or cause of action to file the present complaint and the same is misuse of process of law; the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same is not maintainable. As regards to the facts of the complaint the OPs stated that as per record of the PSPCL, Sub Division Bharri, the complainant applied for electric motor connection for agriculture purpose under Special Category and for load of 7.5 BHP on 20.03.2013, vide A & A form No.30702/AP. The complainant deposited the security of Rs.1600/-, vide BA 16 No.114/97 dated 20.03.2013. Along with the said A & A form, the complainant submitted Jamabandi, ID proofs, own affidavit and affidavits of Sukhdev Singh and Gurmeet Kaur. The complainant disclosed in his affidavit that ancestral land divided among the brothers and the electric motors connections in the name of his father, namely; Buland Singh were fallen in the shares of Darshan Singh and Sukhdev Singh, who are brothers of the complainant and the complainant has no source of irrigation. The estimate was passed, vide office order No.4225 dated 22.04.2013 and the complainant deposited Rs.76,615/- as per the estimate. As per the instruction of the corporation, the installation order dated 25.02.2014 No.510/019 was also issued by OP No.4.  Meanwhile the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi passed status quo order for release of agriculture connection in the state of Punjab. The OPs had issued policy for release of AP connection vide circular No.44/2015 dated 16.12.2015, after the final order passed by the said Tribunal regarding release of connection. In the meantime the brother of the complainant, namely; Sukhdev Singh filed a complaint with the OPs regarding misrepresentation of the facts by the complainant in the application form for release of new motor connection. Sukhdev Singh also mentioned in the complaint that the complainant Ranjit Singh filed false affidavit as he did not give any consent to Ranjit Singh to take new motor connection on the basis of family partition. Thereafter office of OP No.4 issued letter bearing Memo No.755 dated 23.09.2015 regarding complaint of Sukhdev Singh, who objected to release of motor connection.  The office of OP No.4 also issued letter bearing Memo No.849 dated 13.11.2015 to the complainant regarding difference of affidavit and for submission of original affidavits. The OPs also issued letters to Ranjit Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Gurmeet Kaur regarding change of name of the electric motor connections running in the name of Buland Singh. Reminders were also issued as per the rules, regulations and procedure of the OPs. But they neither replied to the letters and reminders nor they informed the OPs regarding death of Buland Singh. It is further stated that on scrutinizing the documents submitted by the complainant, it was found that the complainant has misrepresented the facts and concealed the true and material facts and misguided the OPs by submitting false affidavit dated 25.09.2012. The complainant also admitted in statement during inquiry that the land where he sought new electric motor connection is not the agriculture land. The complainant has already a shareholder in two electric motor connection and there is no chance to give new motor connection to him under Family Partition. It is further stated that, vide memo No.138 dated 17.06.2016, Additional S.E./Enforcement, PSPCL, Khanna has given finding in inquiry that the connection of the complainant come under the new motor connection of Family Partition Scheme. It was recommended by the department that no motor connection would be given to the complainant under family partition scheme and the application of the complainant is treated in General Category. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence attested copies of documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-21, his affidavit Ex. C-22, attested copy of reply Ex. C-23 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Er. Ashok Kumar, Ex. OP-1, certified copies of consumer file Ex. OP-2 to OP-12 and closed the evidence.

5.                   The learned counsel for the complainant has stated that it is established from copy of mutation Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 that partition had effected between the family. He stated that OPs issued demand notice Ex.C-7 and verification report Ex.C-8, thereafter estimate was passed, vide office order No.4225 dated 22.04.2013 and the complainant deposited Rs.76,615/- as per the estimate, further as per the instruction of the Ops, the installation order dated 25.02.2014 No.510/019 was also issued by OP No.4 and this fact has been admitted by the OPs in their written version. The learned counsel pleaded that the co-sharers themselves submitted the no objection certificates, affidavits Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 & Mark A at the office of the OPs. Learned counsel also pleaded that thereafter the OPs started making lame excuses for not issuing the connection. He argued that as per clause 13.8) Electricity Supply Instructions Manual Ex.C-20, Sub Clause x) Family Partition/Division of Land: Priority for release of one tubewell connection to each legal heir is admissible in case of division of landed property as a result of family partition under the provision of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 or as a result of inheritance. The priority shall be regulated as under:-

a)         The priority shall be admissible to legal heirs on the death of a tube  well consumer or to all beneficiaries on division of land under family partition.

b)         All legal heirs/beneficiaries claiming priority shall have to produce copies of FARD indicating their respective shares in the land where original connection is installed.

The learned counsel placed reliance on similar case laws titled as under:-

1)  Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Dilbagh Singh in 2012(2) CLT 287. In the said judgment it has been observed by Hon'ble State Commission in para No. 19 and 20 that, " 19. To decide this issue, Commercial Circular No.60 of 2007 of the appellants-Corporation is applicable to the facts of the present case/dispute, which is reproduced as under:-

" Sub.:- Release of Tubewell connection on priority under genuine family partition/division landed property.

The instructions were issued vide CC No.43/07 dated 20.08.2007 according to which splitting of tubewell connections allowed vide CC No.38/03            (ESR No.326.2) had been withdrawn with immediate effect. However, to avoid hardships to the farmers, the priority for release of one tubewell connection to each legal heir under genuine family partition/division of landed property as a result of family partition under the provisions of Land Revenue Act 1887 or as a result of inheritance (ESR 13.6.11) was allowed by relaxing ban imposed vide fax 12.4.02 on the issue of demand notices under this priority. This priority had been allowed up to release of connection.

Field offices have requested to clarify as to how the release of tubewell connections to the legal heirs under genuine family partition/division of landed property as a result of family partition, is to be regulated as per already prescribed roster.

In this connection, it is clarified that the priority under genuine family partition/division of landed property as a result of family partition allowed vide CC No.43/07 dated 20.08.2007 is fixed at Sr. No.'X' in the roster as under:

1. Ist General Category
2. 2^nd General Category
3. 3^rd General Category
4. 4^th "Sem" Area priority
5. 5^th Ex-Serviceman
6. 6^th Kandi Area Priority
7. 7^th Gram Panchayat Priority
8. 8^th Drip/Sprinkler System Priority
9. 9^th Priority across the Ravi River
10. 10^th Priority under family partition to each legal heir
11. 11^th General Category & so on

The compliance of above instructions may please be ensured."

20.       From the above circular of the appellants, it is clear that each legal heir is entitled for the release of tubewell connection and the appellants have to release one tubewell connection to each legal heir under genuine family partition/division of landed property as a result of family partition under Land Revenue Act, 1887 or as a result of inheritance."

2)         Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors Vs. Kashmir Singh in II(2003)CPJ 292.  In the said judgment it has been observed by the Hon'ble State Commission in para No.5 that, " Admittedly, compliance of the demand notice was made by the complainant in the case in hand. The moment the demand notice is issued the salutary effect of Instruction No.26 of the Sales Manual of the Board as amended on 03.01.1997 starts operating. In this regard reference may be made to an order of this Commission in Appeal No.1298 of 1998, PSEB & Anr. V. Dalbir Singh, decided on 25.02.2000".

3)                  Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Banta Singh in 2003(2) CPC 112, wherein it has been observed, " Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 14 & 15- Electricity- Tube well connection- District Forum accepting the prayer of complainant directed O.P. to release electric connection and pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs of Rs.1,100/- OP failed to release the connection within 6 months after test report violating the Departmental instruction in this regard- There is no illegality in  the impugned order which is based upon a judgment delivered in P.S.E.B. Vs Harjinder Singh ( Appeal No.1277 of 2000) decided on 15.11.2000 of this Commission which was upheld by the Apex Court-Revision Dismissed".

6.                   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs objected to the maintainability of the present complainant. He stated that the complainant has alleged in his pleadings that the officials of the OPs demanded bribe thus the present complaint cannot be adjudicated upon before this forum as complicated questions have arisen. Learned counsel stated that the connection could not be issued due to certain departmental objections as firstly the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi passed status quo order for not releasing of agriculture connection in the State of Punjab. Thereafter scrutinizing the documents submitted by the complainant, it was found that the complainant had misrepresented the facts and concealed the true and material facts and misguided the OPs by submitting false affidavit dated 25.09.2012. Learned counsel pleaded that Additional S.E./Enforcement, PSPCL, Khanna vide memo No.138 dated 17.06.2016, had given finding in inquiry that the connection of the complainant comes under the new motor connection of Family Partition Scheme. Thus no motor connection can be given to the complainant under family partition scheme and the application of the complainant be treated in General Category. He argued that OPs are willing to grant complainant connection under General Category only.

7.                   After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the submissions of the ld. counsel for the complainant. It is well established from the material placed on record the CC.No.60/07 dated 16.10.07 priority under family partition issued by OPs Ex.C-18, demand notice Ex.C-7, verification report Ex.C-8 and thereafter estimate was passed, vide office order No.4225 dated 22.04.2013 and the complainant deposited Rs.76,615/- as per the estimate, further as per the instruction of the Ops, the installation order dated 25.02.2014 No.510/019 was also issued by OP No.4. In our opinion the Ops have failed to place any court order whereby the co-sharers were in dispute. It is ample clear that when the OPs were not themselves clear about priority connection under family partition, then as to why demand notice, verification report and estimate was got deposited by the complainant. We have also observed that no attempt had been made by the OPs to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest. In our opinion the OPs had been negligent and thereby committed deficiency in service.

8.                   Accordingly in view of our aforesaid discussion and the case laws citied by the learned counsel for the complainant titled as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Dilbagh Singh,  Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors Vs. Kashmir Singh & Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Banta Singh (Supra), we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to release the electric tubewell connection under family partition category. We further direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony alongwith 5000/- litigation costs. The OPs are also directed to comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the OPs fail to comply with this order the OPs shall also be held liable to pay 9% p.a. interest on the costs awarded till its realization

9.                   The arguments on the complaint were heard on 23.12.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced                                                                                       

      Dated: 06.01.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)       

        President

 

                                                                               (Veena Chahal)      

                                                                                      Member

 

(A.B.Aggarwal)      

       Member