BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:         07.10.2014

                                                  Date of Decision:           04.08.2015

Thath Singh son of Dhuman Singh, village Cholta Kalan, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali (Punjab).

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     The Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, PSEB, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala 147001.

2.     The Assistant Engineer (Civil) Sub Division, City, Punjab, State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Kharar, District Mohali.

3.     Sub Division Officer, Punjab, State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Kharar, District Mohali (Punjab).

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ARGUMENTS HEARD AND DECIDED BY THE CORAM

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Yashpal Thakur, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Ashok Sharma, counsel for the OPs.

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  Presiding Member)

ORDER

                The complainant who is a farmer and senior citizen filed the present complaint pleading that in the year 2008 he approached the respondent No.2 (OP No.2) for shifting the motor connection (20 BHP) from the present location to the point situated in the Muraba and Khasra No.12/14/2 in the same village Cholta Kalan. Respondent (OP) Department accepted his request and passed the proposal as Takmeena No.83751/08. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.90,000/- vide cheque No.498858 dated 20.05.2010 and an amount of Rs.39,210/- vide cheque No.49883 dated 24.05.2010 as per demand letter No.494 dated 31.03.2009 of the OPs. Inspite of depositing whole amount, the OPs paid no heed to the requests of the complainant and asked him to wait for the connection. On 04.04.2014 the complainant sent a legal notice dated 31.03.2014 through his counsel to the respondents (OPs) to perform their duty within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice but the OPs neither replied to the legal notice nor shifted his tubewell connection. Complainant also mentioned that in the year 2009 when ‘NAKSHA’ (map) was prepared by the OPs then the line was 650 meters which required 10 poles but now current situation has been changed as main line (11KV) passed near the proposed shifting point, now the distance is reduced to 100  meters only so requirement of number of poles and cost would be less.  Lastly the complainant prayed to this Forum to order to the OPs to :

        (a)    Shift the motor connection within time bound period.

(b)    refund the excess costs received by the OPs as distance of connection has reduced from 650 mtrs. to 100 mtrs.

(c)    pay him Rs.6,00,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation.

2.             After the service of notice, the Ops appeared through counsel before this Forum and filed written reply to the complaint taking preliminary objections that the complaint is barred by limitation, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain any complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prayer for dismissal of the complaint. On merits, the OPs admitted that they received the fee from the complainant in order to shift the motor connection. The OPs submitted that complainant moved an application requesting to shift his motor connection near new 11 KW Line near his fields. The Ops started the process for shifting his motor connection afresh. Some delay is caused  in execution of shifting of motor connection due to transfer of Junior Engineers from time to time but there is no malafide intention on the part of the OPs. Now the Ops have already executed the required work. The OPs also admitted that they are ready to refund the excess amount received from the complainant. Lastly the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-7.

4.             Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Er. J.S. Bains, Additional S.E., Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of document Ex.OP-1.

5.             We have heard complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs have also gone through written arguments filed by them.

6.             In the present complaint, the complainant has applied for shifting of his motor connection from one point to another point after depositing the required fee and formalities in 2008. The Ops admitted it but took preliminary objection to dismiss this complaint on the ground that it is filed beyond the limitation period. It is a continuous cause of action unless the OPs specifically deny to install/shift the connection to him.  As the OPs have never denied to shift the connection, so his cause of action is recurring one. This objection of limitation is without any substance because it is a continuous/recurring cause of action. In PSEB & Others Vs. Zora Singh and 70 others III (2003) CPJ 169 (NC) Hon’ble National Commission has not only held that the cause of action is recurring one but also held the Ops deficient and negligent in providing service to the complainant. Further the OPs in their reply remain silent from the period of 2008 till 2014 but gave a lame excuse that motor connection could not be shifted due to transfer of J.Es from time to time. This is not a sufficient ground for not shifting the motor connection. Moreover, the OPs have placed nothing on record that J.Es have been transferred from time to time. In their reply the OPs neither gave any date nor gave any sufficient reason for not shifting the motor connection from 2008 till filing of this complaint.  The OPs did not produce seniority list/rules/regulations for transfer of motor connection from one place to another place. The OPs required to execute the work of shifting of motor connection in accordance with prevailing rules and regulations framed for such purpose or atleast within reasonable time to the complainant who is a farmer and senior citizen. The Ops should have shifted the motor connection of the complainant in time on account of his being a farmer and senior citizen. In the present complaint, such a long delay amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and further the OPs are held negligent for not redressing the grievance of the complainant even after repeated requests and legal notice.

7.             In view of above mentioned reasons, all the OPs namely

1.     The Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, PSEB, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala 147001.

2.     The Assistant Engineer (Civil) Sub Division, City, Punjab, State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Kharar, District Mohali.

3.     Sub Division Officer, Punjab, State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Kharar, District Mohali (Punjab).

are jointly and severally held liable and are directed to:

(a)    pay to the complainant compensation to the tune of  Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) for mental agony and harassment.

(b)    calculate and refund the excess amount received by the OPs from the complainant as the distance of connection has reduced from 650 meters to 100 meter of the motor connection and pay interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt from the complainant till actual date of refund.

(c)    pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) towards costs of litigation.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

August 04, 2015.         

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Presiding Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member