BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 83

Date of Institution : 29.3.2010

Date of Decision : 21.10.2010

Gurjant Singh aged about 55 years s/o Hardial Singh resident of Near Grain Market, Kotkapura Road, Jaito, District Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, PSEB, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) Sub Division, PSEB, Jaito.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for threatening to disconnect the domestic connection of the complainant without any reason bearing Account No. PB 32/0467 and for directing the opposite parties to not to disconnect the connection of the complainant and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is consumer of the opposite parties having a domestic electric connection bearing Account No. PB 32/0467 running in the premises of the complainant. The employees of the opposite party No. 2 had been threatening the complainant time and again that the line erected for the supply of the electricity to the connection of the complainant will be dismantled and connection of the complainant will be disconnected. The complainant is paying all the electricity bills as and when received by him. No amount of the bill is pending against the complainant but on 24.3.2010 employees of the opposite party No. 3 visited the premises of the complainant and tried to disconnect his connection without any reason. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 with the request to know why the connection of the complainant was being disconnected inspite of the fact that no charges of the bill is pending against him but the opposite party No. 2 threatened to disconnect his connection, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 30.3.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not put his case before the Disputes Settlement Committee constituted by the opposite parties, so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was alleged among other things the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. The connection is used for agriculture purpose and the same was disconnected on 2.3.2010. The connection of the complainant was checked by AEE, PSPC Ltd., Jaitu on 23.2.2010 and during checking it was found that the same was being used for other purpose than for which it was released. The connection is of domestic category and it was being used for agricultural purpose, which is against the rules and instructions of the opposite parties. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, copy of bill Ex.C-3, copy of receipt dated 22.3.2010 Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Amarjit Singh Ex.R-1, checking report dated 23.2.2010 Ex.R-2, copy of PDO Ex.R-3 and evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order of this Forum vide order dated 11.10.2010.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant in the present case is that the complainant is facing imminent threats of dismantling of the power line erected for supply of electricity to his connection and thereby disconnecting supply of electricity to his electricity meter under Account No. PB-32/0467.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however submitted that the connection in question was working under domestic category. However, the same is being used by the complainant for agriculture purpose and the same was disconnected on 2.3.2010. On checking of the said electric connection by AEE, PSPC Ltd., Jaitu on 23.2.2010 it was found that on the spot 7.5 BHP three phase motor was being run for agriculture purpose. In this connection, checking report dated 23.2.2010 Ex.R-2 and Local Commissioner report has been heavily relied upon.

10. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. It is not disputed that the complainant has single phase domestic connection bearing Account No. PB-32/0467. At the instance of counsel for the opposite parties pursuant to application filed by him dated 20.9.2010 Sh. Ashu Mittal Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the spot where the electric connection bearing account number aforesaid is running and to inspect that place in the presence of both the parties. He was also directed to prepare site plan of the said place and to prepare inventory of the articles lying in the premises in question, if any. Local Commissioner filed his report dated 4.10.2010 on 11.10.2010. In his report Local Commissioner specifically pointed out among other things that outside Kachha Kotha a three phase motor has been installed in a well by the complainant and as per statement of complainant the same is being run by generator set for irrigation purpose but at the time of his visit there was no generator set at the site. It is difficult to digest that three phase electric motor of 7.5 BHP can be operated from one phase domestic connection released to the complainant. If seen from this angle checking report dated 23.2.1010 Ex.R-2 is found to be totally false and unreliable, leading this Forum to conclude that connection released to the complainant is not being used by him for the purpose for which it was released to him. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant Gurjant Singh is accepted with a direction to the opposite parties to not to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant bearing Account No. PB-32/0467. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 21.10.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)