DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 8 of 09-01-2007<br /> Decided on : 12-04-2007 <br /> <br /> 1. Gurdas Singh S/o Lal Singh aged about 60 years 2. Kulwant Singh S/o Sh. Gurdas Singh aged about 32 years<br /> residents of Vill. Bhagwangarh @ Bhukhianwali, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainants<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2. S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Sangat,District Bathinda..<br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Lakhbir singh, President<br /> Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. J.M. Sayal, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Rajneesh Rampal, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') which has been preferred by the complainants seeking directions from this forum to the opposite parties to issue demand notice ; get the requisite amount deposited from them; extend the load of connection to 20 KW; split the connection of 20 KW into two of 10 KW in the names of each of them; pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for financial loss, mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment besides Rs. 5500/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that complainant No. 1 was the owner in possession of land measuring 25 acres in the area of village Bhagwangarh @ Bhukhianwali, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. Tubewell connection bearing A/c No. AP/152 was in the name of complainant No. 1. There was family partition according to which complainant No. 1 gave 10 acres land to complainant No. 2 and another 10 acres to Gurtej Singh (son of complainant No. 1) . Remaining land was kept by complainant No. 1 for cultivation. Family partition was incorporated in the revenue record. Originally connection was of 10 KW. Application was moved for extension of load to 20 KW on 7.1.05 in view of policy of the Board issued through circular No. BA16 No. 561/66675 dated 7.1.05. A sum of Rs. 12,000/- was deposited towards load extension fee vide receipt No. 561 dated 7.1.05. Application was moved for splitting the connection in their names into two of 10 KW each inview of circular No. 154/74450 dated 23.3.05. Opposite parties got the estimate of Rs. 9770/- prepared. Despite this, demand notice has not been issued for depositing the amount for extension of load and for its bifurcation although they have complied with all the requisite formalities and they are still ready and willing. Due to non extension of load and non release of connection in their names, they are suffering a lot as they are unable to irrigate their fields properly as the level of the water in the locality has gone down and the crops are being damaged. Their requests for doing the needful have proved fertile.. They got served legal notice through their counsel but it bore no fruit. They allege deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complainants have no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; it is not maintainable in the present form; connection holder had got the load extended and inview of circular No. 17/2005 dated 10.3.05, complainants are not entitled to the splitting of the connection for a period of three years; question of law and facts are involved which require voluminous evidence and as such, the matter can only be decided by civil court; no genuine partition has taken place and as per alleged partition, complainant No. 2 is not entitled for splitting the connection; connection is not in the name of complainant No. 2 and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, they admit that load was got extended and thereafter they had applied for splitting the connection. They deny other averments in the complaint<br /> 4.. In support of allegations contained in the complaint, complainants have produced in evidence affidavit of Kulwant Singh, complainant No. 2, photocopies of Jambandies (Ex. C-2 & Ex.C-3), photocopy of receipt (Ex. C-4), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-5), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7) and photocopy of A.D. Card (Ex. C-8).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Sukhmander Pal Singh, AEE (Ex. R-1) and photocopy of CC No. 17/2005 (Ex. R-2) have been tendered in evidence. <br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of opposite parties. <br /> 7. Some facts are undisputed in this case. They are that connection No. AP/152 is in the name of complainant No. 1. Initially it was of 10 B.H.P. Gurdas Singh got the load extended to 20 B.H.P under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme (Here-in-after referred to as `VDS' ) of the Punjab State Electricity Board (Here-in-after referred to as `PSEB') by way of depositing the requisite amount deposited from him. Copy of the receipt in this respect is Ex. C-4.<br /> 8. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Syal, learned counsel for the complainants are that there was valid family partition between the complainants. Factum of family partition has been duly incorporated in the revenue record. Copies of the Jamabandi in the names of the complainants Gurdas Singh and Kulwant Singh for the year 2000 are Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-2 respectively. According to him commercial circular No. 17/2005 is not applicable in the case of the complainants particularly when complainant No. 2 has deposited Rs. 2,000/- vide receipt copy of which is Ex. C-9 on 23.3.05 for splitting the connection on the basis of family partition. For this, he drew our attention to commercial circular No. 37/2005 dated 3.6.05.<br /> 9. Mr. Rampal, learned counsel for the opposite parties urged that complainant No. 1 has got the load extended. Thereafter application was moved for splitting the connection. Keeping in view commercial circular No. 17/2005 dated 10.3.05, copy of which is Ex. R-2 and the fact that complainants have not proved valid family partition, connection cannot be split. Request for splitting the connection has been rightly declined and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 11. Material questions for determination are as to whether there is valid and genuine family partition between the complainants and commercial circular No. 17/2005 dated 10.3.05 is not applicable to the case in hand ? In our view complainants have failed to establish valid genuine family partition of their land. Copies of Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 are Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3. According to Ex. C-2 Kulwant Singh alone is the owner in possession of 8 Kanal of land comprising Khasra No. 133 min. Similarly Gurdas Singh has been recorded as the owner in possession of land measuring 8 kanals comprising khasra No. 133 min. Two courses were open to the complainants to prove family partition. They could place on record copy of the Jamabandi prior to the Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 showing that land was jointly owned by the complainants or they could prove on record copy of mutation revealing the partition of the joint land on the basis of family partition. None of these documents is on the record. In the copies of the Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 brought on record Kulwant Singh and Gurdas Singh have been recorded to be owners in possession of land in their independent capacity. From them conclusion cannot be arrived that previously this land was joint and they have effected partition on the basis of family partition. Hence, the contention of the opposite parties that no genuine family partition has taken place is well founded.<br /> 12. Admittedly connection holder i.e. complainant No. 1 got the load of connection extended from 10 B.H.P. to 20 B.H.P. under VDS of the Board. Commercial circular No. 17/2005 is dated 10.3.05. Complainant No. 2 applied for splitting the connection into two of 10 B.H.P. each by way of depositing Rs. 2,000/- on 233.05 vide receipt copy of which is Ex. C-9. Clause '3' of para 1 of commercial circular No. 17/2005 is reproduced as under :-<br /> “Tubewell consumers, who first get the load extended after having the benefit of VDS and then go in for splitting of tubewell connections, whether running or Rural/Urban Feeders shall not qualify for splitting for a period of 3 years from the date of last extension under VDS.”<br /> 13. Consumers who first get the load extended under VDS and then go in for splitting of tubewell connection do not qualify for splitting for a period of three years from the date of last extension under VDS . Complainant No. 1 got the load extended under VDS by way of depositing Rs. 12,000/- on 7.1.05. Due to the bar created by Clause '3' of para 1 of commercial circular No. 17/2005, complainants are not entitled for getting the connection split into two for a period of three years from the date of extension of the load under VDS. In this case, this commercial circular No. 17/2005 is applicable as complainant No. 2 got the amount deposited on 23.3.05 i.e. the day after commercial circular No. 17/2005 came into force.<br /> Commercial circular No. 37/2005 is reproduced as under :-<br /> “Commercial Circular No. 37/2005<br /> Issued vide Chief Engineer/Commercial(Sales Dtd.)PSEB Patiala memo No. 57001/57801/SMI-32 S dated 03.06.2005.<br /> Sub : Splitting of Agriculture Tubewell connection due to genuine family partition.<br /> As per CC 38/03 dated 9.6.03 facility of splitting of existing AP Tubewell connections of load 10 BHP and above into two is available in case of genuine family partition duly registered in the revenue record. Vide commercial circular 17/05 consumers who had got their load extended under VDS were debarred from splitting for a period of 3 years from the date of last extension under VDS.<br /> Clarifications have been sought whether the splitting is to be allowed or not to such existing consumer's who have got their load extended under VDS & their applications for splitting have already been processed & demand notices issued.<br /> The matter has been reviewed and it has been decided as under :<br /> i) The existing consumers who had got their load extended under VDS & their applications for splitting under genuine family partition registered and demand notice issued before the date of issue of CC No. 17/05 dated 10.3.05 shall be processed for splitting provided they fulfill the conditions as laid down in CC 38/03 dated 9.6.03 amended vide CC 17/05 dated 10.3.05. However, field officers must ensure that such cases of genuine family partition are duly registered in revenue records<br /> ii) No further extension of load under VDS will be allowed to consumers who have got their load splieed as specified under para (i) above for a period of three years from the date of splitting.<br /> iii) Enforcement agencies shall carry out intensive checking of such cases to ensure that motors installed by consumers after splitting under genuine family partition at site are strictly as per splitting allowed.” <br /> 14. Perusal of commercial circular No. 37/2005 reveals that commercial circular No. 17/2005 dated 10.3.05 is not applicable to consumers whose applications under genuine family partition were registered and demand notices were issued to them before 10.3.05 provided they fulfill the condition as laid down under commercial circular No. 38/2003 dated 9.6.03. In this case, it has not been proved by the complainants that their applications for splitting the connection on the basis of family partition is prior to 10.3.05. Rather as per Ex. C-9, complainant No. 2 deposited Rs. 2,000/- on 23.3.05. Admittedly, demand notice has been issued to the complainants. Hence, complainants cannot avail any benefit from commercial circular No. 37/2005. In their case, commercial circular No. 17/2005 dated 10.3.05 is applicable which creates bar for splitting the connection as discussed above.<br /> 15. In the premises written, crux of the matter is that complainants have failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, complaint is meritless and the same is dismissed. Parties are left to their their own costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 12-04-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member Member<br /> <br /> <br />