DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 277 of 19-09-2007<br /> Decided on :08-01-2008 <br /> <br /> Labh Singh aged about 45 years S/o Sh. Nand Singh R/o Village Phul, District Bathinda. .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.A.E.E./S.D.O. City Sub Division, P.S.E.B. Rampura, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Father of the complainant had applied for tube well connection in general category. Application fee was deposited on 19.6.86. A & A Form No. 1 4213 AP was also submitted. Demand notice No. 8014 dated 18.9.01 was issued. Its terms and conditions were duly complied by him. Required amount of Rs. 15,000/- was deposited on 10.1.02. It is alleged that opposite parties were required to release the connection within one month but it has not so far been released. Opposite parties are adopting pick and choose method and are superseding him by way of ignoring his seniority. Sr. Executive Engineer (Distribution) had also written letter No. 6058 dated 1.8.07 to Superintending Engineer (Distribution) about his entitlement to electricity connection. Opposite parties have caused him mental tension, harassment and botheration. It is further averred by him that his father has since died on 7.11.06 and he is his sole legal heir. Vide letter No. 849 dated 11.5.06, opposite parties have raised demand of Rs. 83,125/-. He assails this demand as illegal stating that entire amount of Rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of release of connection has already been deposited on 10.1.02. No reason has been assigned as to why the amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been enhanced to Rs. 83,125/-. In these circumstance, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by him seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to release him tube well connection immediately; pay Rs. 80,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, botheration and loss in agricultural income and quash demand of Rs. 83,125/-.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file it; he is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct; he is not consumer; he has not come with clean hands and complaint is false and frivolous. He has concealed material facts. Nand Singh had applied for tube well connection in the year 1986. As per policy of the Board, demand notice for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was issued in the year 2001 which was complied with by Nand Singh. A seniority list under general category for HT connections was prepared in which Nand Singh was placed at Sr. No. 4. Demand notice was issued as per required rate i.e. @ Rs. 3000/- per BHP X 5 BHP. It was clearly mentioned in the demand notice that consumer has to bear extra expenses on account of extra service line beyond one KM @ Rs. 125/- per meter. Thereafter Board had introduced Circular No. 32/05 effective from 17.5.05 whereby it was directed to release all the connections pending earlier to 31.3.88. In order to release the connection to Nand Singh, they had processed the case for release of connection. Fresh estimate as per actual material required was prepared. It was found that a length of extra service line to the extent of 665 meters is required. Accordingly demand notice bearing No. 849 dated 11.5.06 raising demand of Rs. 83,125/- was issued. Neither Nand Singh nor complainant complied with it. Accordingly letter No. 2298/99 dated 8.12.06 was issued in the name of Nand Singh for its compliance. He was further intimated that in case compliance is not made, his application would stand cancelled. Despite this, there was no compliance. Ultimately, opposite party No. 2 wrote letter No. 653 dated 16.5.07 to Additional Superintending Engineer apprising him about the facts and non-compliance of demand notice and sought permission to cancel the application. Additional Superintending Engineer which replying memo No. 4412 dated 1.6.07 has made recommendations to keep the application surviving. Accordingly, release of connection is still pending for want of compliance of demand notice dated 11.5.06. Since other consumers have complied with the demand notices, their connections have been released on 1.6.07. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit and additional affidavit (Ex. C-1& Ex. C-3 respectively), photocopy of demand notice (Ex. C-2), photocopies of letters dated 11.5.06, 8.12.06 and 27.7.07 (Ex. R-4 to Ex. R-6 respectively), photocopy of memo dated 30.7.07 (Ex. C-7), photocopy of letter dated 30.7.07 (Ex. C-8), photocopy of letter dated 1.8.07 (Ex. C-9), photocopy of rough sketch (Ex. C-10), photocopy of death certificate of Nand Singh (Ex. C-11), photocopy of bill of photographs (Ex. C-12) and photographs (Ex. C-13 to Ex. C-18).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Bhagwant Singh, AAE (Ex. R-1), photocopy of A&A Form (Ex. R-2), photocopy of demand notice (Ex. R-3), photocopy of letter (Ex. R-4), photocopy of affidavit of Nand Singh (Ex. R-5), photocopy of Memo No. 4338 (Ex. R-6), photocopy of rough sketch (Ex. R-7), photocopy of letter dated 11.5.06 (Ex. R-8), photocopy of one page of Despatch Register (Ex. R-9), photocopy of letter dated 8.12.06 (Ex. R-10), photocopy of one page of Despatch Register (Ex. R-11), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. R-12), photocopy of letter dated 16.5.07 (Ex. R-13), photocopy of letter dated 1.6.07 (Ex. R-14), photocopy of letter dated 1.8.07 (Ex. R-15), photocopy of seniority list (Ex. R-16) and photocopies of test reports register (Ex. R-17 to Ex. R-19) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that Nand Singh father of the complainant had applied for electricity connection for running the tube well in the year 1986 in general category. A & A Form was submitted, copy of which is Ex. R-2. Demand Notice No. 8014 dated 18.9.01 was issued to him for depositing Rs. 15,000/- and copies of the same are Ex. C-2 & Ex. R-3 respectively. He had deposited this amount of Rs. 15,000/- on 10.1.02 in compliance of the demand notice as is evident from Ex. R-4. Tube well connection was not released to him. Nand Singh has expired on 7.11.06 . His Death Certificate is Ex. C-11. Complainant is a son of Nand Singh and the beneficiary for the connection. Connection was not released on the basis of the demand notice. Rather letter dated 11.5.06, copies of which are Ex. C-4 & Ex. R-8 was issued by A.E. City, Punjab State Electricity Board, Rampura for depositing Rs. 83,125/- towards cost of cable beyond 1 Km. Another letter dated 8.12.06, copy of which is Ex. C-5 was issued by the opposite parties for getting deposited the said amount. Complainant had written letter dated 27.7.07 to the Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board for getting the connection and copy of the same is Ex. C-6. Since complainant did not deposit this amount of Rs. 83,125/-, connection could not be released to him. S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Rampura sent letter to Additional Superintending Engineer,. Copy of which is Ex. R-13 for cancellation of the application of Nand Singh. Sr. Executive Engineer (Distribution) also issued letter to S.D.O. (Distribution) on 1.6.07, copy of which is Ex. R-14. Sr. Executive Engineer (Distribution) sent another letter to Superintending Engineer on 1.8.07, copy of which is Ex. R-15, intimating him that complainant has not deposited the sum of Rs. 83,125/- and as such his application is kept pending.<br /> 7. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant argued that father of the complainant made compliance of the terms and conditions of the demand notice by way of depositing Rs. 15,000/- on 10.1.02. Despite this, electricity connection for tube well has not been released. Complainant is not liable to deposit additional sum of Rs. 83,125/- as demanded by the opposite parties and is entitled to get released the electricity connection immediately. Since the electricity connection has not so far been released, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He further argued that some of the persons who were junior to the complainant have been issued electricity connections as is clear from Ex. R-16. His next submission is that connection can be released to the complainant from Industrial feeder or 11 KV Phul Urban feeder as has been made clear by Sr. Executive Engineer(Distribution) in his letter dated 1.8.07 copy of which is Ex. R-15. <br /> 8. Mr. Inderjit Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that in the demand notice dated 18.9.01 itself it was made clear that in case the length of the line exceeds 1 Km, consumer would have to pay additional expenses @ Rs. 125/- per meter. Connection of the complainant is for agricultural purposes and it cannot be issued from industrial and urban feeders. Since complainant did not deposit Rs. 83,125/- as additional charges for the line beyond 1 Km, opposite parties are not at fault in releasing connections to some other persons who have made compliance of their demand notices by way of depositing the requisite amount.<br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 10. No doubt in the letter dated 1.8.07, copies of which are Ex. C-9 & Ex. R-15 Senior Executive Engineer (Distribution) has recorded that the industrial feeder from the site of the complainant is at a distance of 50 Meters whereas Phul urban feeder is at a distance of 550 Meters. He has recommended that connection deserves to be issued to the complainant. No doubt it is so but the material question is as to whether connection for agricultural purposes can be issued from the Rural and Industrial feeders. The reply to our minds is in the negative. Even in the demand notice itself, it has been made clear that consumer would get connection only from the Rural feeders. As per Commercial Circular No. 41/2005, A.P. tube well connection can under no circumstances be released from Industrial/Urban/Urban pattern supply feeders. Accordingly, complainant cannot drive any benefit from the letter dated 1.8.07.<br /> 11. Admittedly father of the complainant had made compliance of the demand notice dated 18.9.01 by way of depositing Rs. 15,000/-. In the letter dated 1.8.07 it has been explained that if connection was given from 11 KV Buraj Mansa Rural feeder, the length of the line was 790 Meter on account of which consumer was not required to pay the additional charges and that while getting the estimate sanctioned, some portion of 11 KV Buraj Mansa Rural feeder has to be dismantled due of which consumer/complainant has to pay the additional charges to the tune of Rs. 83,125/-. Learned counsel for the complainant has brought to our notice the rough sketch as well, copy of which is Ex. R-7 according to which the length of the line comes of 1650 Meters. For that, opposite parties are demanding Rs. 83,125/- as additional charges on the basis of the letter dated 11.5.06. It is true that in the demand notice dated 18.9.01, opposite parties have made it clear that in case the length of the line is beyond 1 Km. Additional expenses would be charged @ Rs. 125/- per meter. Demand notice is issued after verification of the site etc., Admittedly when it was issued, extra charges were not required to be paid. He was to pay Rs. 15,000/- which was deposited. Despite this, connection was not released. On 11.5.06, he was asked to pay Rs. 83,125/- as additional charges for additional cable. No doubt, opposite parties cannot be directed by this Forum to raise dismantled service line of Buraj Mansa Rural feeder, yet deficiency in service on their part still remains as prior to issuing the letter dated 11.5.06 connection could be release to the complainant, but it has not been issued. In case 11 KV Buraj Mansa Rural feeder was to be dismantled, demand for additional amount could be made from the complainant at the earliest. Opposite parties used the amount of Rs. 15,000/- deposited by the father of the complainant on 10.1.02 to his/complainant's detriment without anything in return to them. On this aspect as well, there is deficiency in service on their part. <br /> 12. Ex. R-16 reveals that electricity connections for tube well purposes have been released to some persons who were junior to Nand Singh, father of the complaint. We are of the view that on this account, there is no discrimination with the complainant. Letters were issued to the complainant to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 83,125/-. He has not deposited it till today. Some other persons deposited the requisite amount in compliance of the demand raised by the opposite parties. Since they deposited the amount prior to the deposit of the amount of Rs. 83,125/- by the complainant, electricity connection for tube well purposes have been released to them. In this scenario, there is no discrimination with the complainant. Electricity connections for tube well purposes to the persons junior to the complainant who deposited the amount, could not be withheld merely on account of the fact that complainant who is senior to them, has not deposited the amount of Rs. 83,125/-.<br /> 13. Question that now arises is as to which relief should be accorded to <br /> <br /> <br /> the complainant. In the fact and circumstances of this case, complainant who is only legal heir of his father as per Ex. C-6 deserves interest on the amount of Rs. 15,000/- deposited on 10-01-02 @ 9% P.A. from the date of deposit till the demand of Rs. 83,125/- for additional line was raised on 11.5.06. After calculating the amount of interest, the same would be reduced from the demand of Rs. 83,125/-. Thereafter they would issue fresh notice to the complainant to deposit the remaining amount for release of tube well connection. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 80,000/-. In our view there is no case to allow it in view of the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above.<br /> 14. In the result, complaint is accepted against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Calculate interest on the amount of Rs. 15,000/- @ 9% P.A. from 10-01-02 till 11-05-06 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and deduct it from the demand of Rs. 83,125/- raised through letter No. 849 dated 11.5.06 and thereafter issue fresh notice/demand for the remaining amount to the complainant within next 15 days for depositing it.<br /> ii) In case complainant deposits the remaining amount as directed above, electricity connection for tube well would be released by the opposite parties within two months from the date of deposit of the amount.<br /> Compliance with regard to the payment of cost be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room,<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 08-01-2008 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member