DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 340 of 28-07-2010

Decided on : 20 -12-2010

Teja Singh, S/o Gheechar Singh, R/o Village Bhaini, District Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chief Engineer, Opposite Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda.

2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Bhagta, District Bathinda.

3. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Nathana, District Bathinda.

4. Kuldeep Singh, Junior Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division, 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 : Sh. Sandeep Baghla counsel for the complainant.

For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.D. Nayyar, counsel for the opposite parties

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant is holder of electric connection bearing A/c No. AP 030524. He had applied the said connection under OYT scheme and after paying the requisite amount, the connection was released to him as per his seniority. The said connection is being used by the complainant for the irrigation purposes. The connection was being released from 11 KV line with a step down transformer which was installed individual for each consumer along side the Tubewell. The entire cost of the said distribution 11 KV line and the distribution transformer was borne by the consumer and accordingly, the cost of 11 KV line and the transformer installed in the premises of the complainant had been borne by the complainant and complainant paid a sum of sum of Rs. 79,865/- towards the cost of the line, transformer and other service connection charges vide receipt No. 310/482 dated 17-06-2009. The opposite parties in connivance with each other have misused the distribution transformer and have connected another tubewell connection of Gokal Singh S/o Kahan Singh of the adjoining field to the distribution transformer of the complainant. The complainant alleged that opposite parties have no legal entity to disturb the said distribution system of the complainant of their own accord without the consent of the complainant as the cost of its replacement, maintenance etc., was to be borne by the complainant in eventuality of any breakdown. The electric connection of Gokal Singh was already running on another transformer for the last about 10 years but the opposite party No. 4 due to extraneous reasons have illegally connected the tubewell connection of Gokal Singh to the transformer of the complainant. The complainant alleged that the capacity of the single distribution transformer is as per the load of the motor and any additional load on the transformer is likely to cause breakdown of the transformer and disturb the electricity supply of the complainant. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to remove the said connection of Gokal Singh from the distribution transformer of the complainant, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to remove the connection of Gokal Singh from the distribution transformer of the complainant and pay to complainant compensation and cost.

2. The opposite parties filed written statement and submitted that connection had been released under the OYT scheme to the complainant and the amount had been charged as per rules of P.S.P.C. Ltd., The complainant had paid the said amount for getting connection under this scheme but nowhere any assurance had been given to him that the opposite parties will not release any further connection from that line or transformer. It was specifically denied that the transformer was individually installed for the complainant. The opposite parties admitted that connection of Gokal Singh was connected to the line of the complainant. The depositing of the amount by the complainant did not make him the owner of the line and the other equipment and the opposite parties are legally empowered to release other connections from the same line. It was denied that before the release of the connection the consent of the complainant was required. The opposite parties have pleaded that connection has been connected legally and as per rules and on technical grounds.

3. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings.

4. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the connection under OYT scheme was released from 11 KV line with a step down transformer which was installed individually for each consumer along side the tubewell. The entire cost of the said distribution 11 KV line and the distribution transformer is borne by the consumer. Accordingly the complainant had paid Rs. 79,865/- vide receipt No. 310/482 dated 17-06-2009. The opposite parties in connivance with each other has misused the transformer installed for giving supply to the electric connection of the complainant as they have connected another tubewell connection of Gokal Singh S/o Kahan Singh of the adjoining field to the distribution transformer of the complainant. He further submitted that as under OYT scheme, the entire cost of electricity line and transformer has been borne by the complainant, the cost of maintenance of transformer, line and other allied equipment would be borne by the complainant himself, as such the opposite parties cannot disturb the distribution system of the complainant of their own without his consent. The electric connection of Gokal Singh is already running from another transformer from the last about 10 years and there was no reason for connecting his connection with the transformer of the complainant. The capacity of single distribution transformer is as per the load of the motor and any additional load on the transformer is likely to cause break down of the transformer and disturb the electricity supply of the complainant for which the cost has to be borne by the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that opposite parties have no legal right to tap the distribution transformer of the complainant nor there is any such regulation permitting the opposite parties to do so.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has admitted that the opposite parties have connected the connection of Gokal Singh from the line in question as the opposite parties are fully empowered to do so. Nothing has been done in connivance with the opposite parties. The said connection has been connected on the technical grounds. They submitted that depositing of amount by the complainant does not make him the owner of the line and other equipments and the opposite parties are empowered to release other connection from the same line. As the connection has been connected on technical grounds, there is no likelihood of any breakdown or disturbance of electricity supply of the complainant.

7. The complainant vide letters dated 24-06-2010 and 2-7-2010 Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-3 respectively requested the opposite parties that two connections of Gokal Singh which have been connected with his transformer be removed and again reconnected with the transformer where they were connected for the last ten years and the complainant be paid half of the expenses. The relevant paras of the commercial circulars of the opposite parties are reproduced hereunder.

   Para Nos. 3.6 and 3.7 of Commercial Circular No. 43/2000

   “3.6 The applicants shall bear the entire cost of 11 KV line. LT Cable and other allied equipment minus cost of the equipments supplied by him as per para 3.5 above. The consumer shall also bear the cost of all other charges applicable, including cost of erection of transformers, 11 KV lines & other equipments required for the release of connections. Two or more applicants can share the cost of common 11 KV line. However, they shall be using separate transformer for their respective tubewells.

   3.7 The replacement of the damaged transformer shall be the responsibility of the consumer.”

   Commercial Circular 09/2001 para No. 7

   “The replacement of the damaged T/F shall be the responsibility of the consumer. The scheme shall be operative through out the Punjab State & shall remain inforce upto 31-3-2001 from the date of issue of this circular.”

   Commercial Circular No. 46/2000 para Nos. iv), v), vi) and vii)

   “ iv) – The entire material required for release of tubewell connection i.e. 11 KV line/Distribution transformer and service cable shall be arranged/erected by the prospective consumer. Two or more applicants can share the cost of common 11 KV line. However, they shall be using separate transformer(s) for their respective tubewell (s).

   v) The consumer shall be responsible for replacement of entire material damaged during 2 years from the release of connection. However, it will be the responsibility of the consumer to replace transformer as and when the same is damaged being his own property.

   vi) Once a connection is released to the consumer the Board shall carry out the routine Mtc. Of 11 KV line, of course within the first two years with the material for replacement being supplied by the consumer.

   vii) The prospective consumer shall get their line/sub -station erected/constructed from the private contractor approved by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab Government. However, the concerned Sub-divisional Officer/Operation will verify the test report regarding construction/erection of line/Sub-station, as per Indian Electricity Act/Indian Standards.”

   Commercial Circular No. 44/2007 para No. (iii).

   “(iii).....Two or more applicants can jointly share the cost of common KV line. However, they shall be required to have separate transformer(s) for their respective tubewell. An undertaking duly notarized to this effect shall be submitted by them alongwith the application itself.”

8. A perusal of above mentioned circulars reveals that two or more applicants can share the cost of 11 KV line. However, they shall be using transformer for their respective tubewells. In the present case, connection of Gokal Singh was connected from separate transformer and now the opposite parties have connected the connection of Gokal Singh with the transformer of the complainant without his consent by avoiding their own rules and regulations. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

9. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and cost. The opposite parties are directed to remove the connection of Gokal Singh from the transformer of the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced

20-12-2010

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul) Member