DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.135 of 18.5.2007<br /> Decided on : 3.7.2007 <br /> <br /> 1.Inderjeet Singh S/o Sh. Gurtej Singh S/o Sh. Ujjagar Singh;<br /> 2.Kulwant Singh S/o Sh. Gurtej Singh S/o Sh. Ujjagar Singh;<br /> both residents of village Lehra Mohabat, Tehsil & District Bathinda. <br /> ...... Complainants<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2. AEE/SDO, Punjab State Elecy. Board, City Sub Division, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainants : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( Here-in-after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to split electricity connection bearing A/c No. LM-436/AP into two of 10 and 5 BHP connections in their names respectively from urban and not from rural feeder; pay Rs.25,000/- to them as compensation for mental sufferings, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 1. Version of the complainants lies in the narrow compass as under :-<br /> Previously electricity connection bearing A/c No. LM-436AP in the name of complainant No. 1 was of 10 BHP. He got the load extended upto 5 BHP by way of depositing Rs. 16,000/- vide receipt No. 238 dated 29.6.2004. As per scheme of the Board, complainant No. 2 had applied for splitting this connection into two i.e. 10 BHP in the name of complainant No. 1 and 5 BHP in the name of complainant No.2. A sum of Rs.1,000/- was deposited vide receipt No. 318 dated 9.7.2004 book No. 74440 as fee for splitting the connection. They have considerable land which has been orally partitioned by them. They are in possession of their respective shares. Partition has been given effect to by the revenue authorities by way of sanctioning mutation. On the basis of the mutation, entry has been incorporated in the Jamabandi. There is no dispute between them as there was genuine oral partition between them. As per Sales Regulation No. 13.6.10 to 13.6.1, connection can be split into two. Splitting of tubewell connections already running on urban/city feeders was allowed at par with rural feeder consumers. Condition regarding qualifying period of three years is not applicable in their case as their connection of 10 BHP was already running since long. Their connection is running from urban feeder. Hence, splitting is to be done from this feeder, whereas opposite parties are adamant to split it from the rural feeder which is against the rules. Opposite parties are not splitting the connection into two. Splitting is to be done where 20 meters cable is required. They allege that they are undergoing mental sufferings. Previously, opposite parties have given permission to one Nagar Singh for splitting 15 BHP connection into three vide memo No. 54101 dated 21.8.2004. Similar, permission was granted to Gurbaksh Singh having connection No. LD-205 in the area of village Lehra Dhurkot and his connection has been split into connections No. 219 & 240 in the names of his sons. In these circumstances, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainants have no cause of action to file it; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try it; complaint is false and frivolous and complainants are not consumers. Splitting of electricity connections to different heirs is governed by Sales Regulation No. 13.6.10 to 13.6.11 and Commercial Circulars No. 38/2003 and 17/2005. As per these regulations and circulars, connection can be split into only two connections and not more to the legal heirs subject to their completing the requisite formalities. In case, the load required to be got split has been got extended under Voluntarily Disclosure Scheme (Here-in-after referred to as VDS), it is only after three years the same can be split up and that too from a rural feeder, whereas the case of the complainants falls under urban feeder. After receiving application from the complainants and a few other consumers for getting their load split up, a clarification was sought from the Head Office. It has been given vide Commercial Circular No. 17/2005 according to which splitting of the connections even from the urban feeder was permitted subject to the condition that such connections are getting metered supply and existing tubewell connection load is 10 BHP and above at the time of release of original connection. Clause of three years with regard to the load extended under VDS has also been explained. In this case, complainants have failed to complete the requisite formalities and to produce requisite documents i.e. record pertaining to ownership of the land and even mutation etc. Since the load has been got extended under VDS and as such, splitting is not possible before three years. Complainants are trying to abuse the process of law as they first got the load increased and thereafter, they are trying to take shelter of alleged family partition. Infact, they want to make two motor connections under VDS. Even otherwise, they are not getting metered supply, so the splitting of the connection is not permissible. On merits, they do not specifically deny that previously connection No. LM-436/AP in the name of complainant No. 1 was of 10 BHP and he got it extended upto 5 BHP by way of depositing Rs.16,000/- on 29.6.2004. They admit that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was deposited for splitting the connection. Oral family partition, sanctioning of mutation on its basis by the revenue authorities and its incorporation in the revenue record is denied by them for want of knowledge. According to them, the cases of Nagar Singh and Gurbaksh Singh were distinguishable from the facts of this case. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of their allegations and averments in the complaint, complainants have tendered into evidence affidavit (Ex.C.1) of Inderjeet Singh complainant No.1, photocopies of receipts No. 318 & 583 dated 9.7.2004 & 25.8.2005 respectively (Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3), photocopy of Pass Book (Ex.C.4), photocopy of letter dated 1.3.2007 (Ex.C.5), photocopy of Rough Sketch (Ex.C.6), photocopy of letter dated 13.10.2004 (Ex.C.7), photocopies of C/C No. 17/2005 & 38 (Ex.C.8 & Ex.C.9) & photocopy of Jamabandi for the year 2000-01(Ex.C.10).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Gagandeep Singla, AEE/SDO, Operation, City Sub Division, PSEB, Rampura Phul.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the parties.<br /> 6. Some of the facts are not in dispute in this case. They are that electricity connection No. LM-436/AP is standing in the name of Inderjeet Singh. Previously, its sanctioned load was 10 BHP. Subsequently, he got it extended to 15 BHP by way of depositing Rs. 16,000/-. Copy of the Pass Book is Ex.C.4. Opposite parties do not deny this fact in the reply of the complaint. Complainant No.2 deposited Rs.1,000/- on 9.7.2004 vide receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.2, with the opposite parties for splitting the connection on the basis of the family partition. Connection has not been split into two.<br /> 7. One of the pleas taken by the opposite parties is that complainants did not complete the requisite formalities as they did not produce the record of ownership of land and mutation etc. There is no document to establish it except affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh.Gagandeep Singla, SDO. Opposite parties have not produced any letter revealing that documents regarding ownership and mutation etc. were demanded. In para No. 4 of the complaint, complainants have specifically pleaded that affidavits and all other documents have already been furnished to the opposite parties which are in their possession. There is no specific denial on the part of the opposite parties on this aspect of the matter. Their denial is for want of knowledge. Inderjeet Singh complainant in his affidavit Ex.C.1 has reiterated his version in the complaint. Complainants have also brought on record copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2000-01 which is Ex.C.10. According to it, mutation No. 19771 regarding partition of the land has been sanctioned, on the basis of the family partition. This fact has also been pleaded by the complainant in para No. 3 of the complaint. Opposite parties do not deny it specifically. Their denial is for want of knowledge. Hence, there remains no dispute regarding family partition and ownership of the land. Complainants are owners in possession of their respective shares of the land. Accordingly, objection of the opposite parties on this aspect stands repelled.<br /> 8. Principal argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that complainant No. 1 in whose name is electricity connection is not getting metered supply and before three years after the date of extension of the load under VDS, splitting of connection into two is not permissible. For this, reliance is placed on the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Gagandeep Singla, SDO.<br /> 9. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainants argued that Commercial Circular No. 17/2005 is not applicable as complainant No. 2 had applied for splitting the connection when this circular was not in force.<br /> 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. Material question for determination is as to whether Commercial Circular No. 17/2005 is applicable in the case in hand. This circular is dated 10.3.2005. According to it, splitting of tubewell connections already running on Urban/City Feeders is allowed at par with Rural Feeder consumers as per prevalent Commercial Circular No. 38/2003 subject to the condition that such connections are getting metered supply. Application for splitting the connection into two as per scheme of the Board was moved by complainant No. 2 on 9.7.2004 i.e. much prior to 10.3.2005. Learned counsel for the opposite parties failed to establish that condition of getting metered supply and clause of three years with regard to load extended under VDS were existing before 10.3.2005. Commercial Circular No. 38/2003 was applicable when application for splitting the connection on the basis of the family partition was moved in this case on 9.7.2004. When the complainants applied for getting the connection split into two, there was no condition of metered supply and clause of three years with regard to load extended under VDS. They came into force on 10.3.2005. There is nothing in Commercial Circular No. 17/2005 that it would have retrospective operation. In such a situation, it will apply prospectively to the persons who applied on 10.3.2005 or thereafter. Hence, we are of the view that conditions under which complainants are being denied the relief prayed for by them, are not applicable in their case. Since, opposite parties are not splitting the connection in the genuine case of the complainants after getting deposited the requisite fee, there is deficiency in service on their part in rendering service to them. <br /> 11. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainants. As per our aforesaid discussion, they are certainly entitled for getting the connection split up. One of the prayers of the complainants is that direction be given to split up the connection from urban feeder and not from rural feeder. To our minds, this prayer is not justified. It is for the Board to consider from which feeder splitting of the connection is feasible. Accordingly, prayer on this count is declined. Facts and circumstances show that complainants have undergone mental tension and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties on account of causing unnecessary delay in splitting the connection. Hence, complainants deserve some compensation which we assess as Rs.1,000/-. For this, we are fortified by the observations of Hon'ble State Commission of Madhya Pradesh in the case of J. Radhakrishnan Vs. A Basheera & another-2001(2)CLT-225 (MP) wherein it has been held that award of compensation always involves some sort of speculation and it is very difficult to quantify the amount of compensation on a rationale basis.<br /> 1. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 2. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under:-<br /> ( i ) Split electricity connection No. LM-436/AP into two of 10 BHP in the name of Inderjeet Singh complainant No.1 and of 5 BHP in the name of Kulwant Singh complainant No.2 within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after getting deposited any amount, if so warranted under rules/law.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainants as compensation under Section 14 (1) (d) of the Act.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance regarding payment of compensation and costs be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 16. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 3.7.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br />