DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 23 of 18-01-2007<br /> Decided on :22-03-2007<br /> <br /> 1. Puran Singh aged about 42 years<br /> 2. Sakatar Singh aged about 50 years S/o Sadhu Singh R/o Lehra Mohabbat, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainants<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2. A.E.E./S.D.O. PSEB City Sub Division, Rampura Phul.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.D. 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 `Act') which has been preferred by the complainants seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to split electricity connection No. LM-26 AP of 15 HP into two of 10 BHP and 5 BHP each in their names respectively ; pay them Rs. 25,000 as compensation for mental sufferings besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainants is that previously this electricity connection of 10 BHP was in the name of complainant No. 1. He applied for extension of load upto 5 BHP on 30.6.04 by way of depositing Rs.16,000/-. Load was extended. As per scheme of the Punjab State Electricity Board (Here-in-after referred to as `Board') complainant No. 2 applied for splitting connection into two i.e 10 BHP in the name of complainant No. 1 and 5 BHP in his name by way of depositing Rs. 1,000/- vide receipt No. 556, book No. 74440 dated 31.8.04. This amount was deposited as fee for splitting up the connection. They owned considerable land which has been orally partitioned by them. They are in possession of their respective shares. Partition has been given effect to by revenue authorities by way of sanctioning mutation in their favour. Factum of partition has been duly incorporated in the Jamabandi. There is no dispute between them regarding the genuineness of oral family partition. As per Sales Regulation No. 13.6.10 to 13.6.11 connection can be split . Splitting of 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 the connection of 10 HP was already running since long and there is no dispute between them about oral family partition. Previously opposite parties have granted permission to Nazar Singh of Village Lehra Mohhabbat for splitting 15 BHP connection into 3 vide Memo No. 54101 of 21.8.04. Similar permission was granted to Gurbaksh singh of village Lehra Dhulkot who was having connection No. D-205. His connection was split into connections No. 219 & 240 in the names of his sons.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainants do not have any cause of action; they have not approached this forum with clean hands; this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainants are not consumers; matter in dispute is not covered under the definition of service; matter is liable to be referred to Dispute Settlement Committee of the Board and complaint is false and frivolous. Inter-alia their plea is that splitting of electricity connection to different heirs is governed by Sales Regulations No. 38/2003 and 17/2005. As per them connection cannot be split into two and not more to the legal heirs subject to their completing the requisite formalities as required. In case the load of the connection required to be got split is got extended under Voluntarily Disclosure Scheme (Here-in-after referred to as `VDS`'), it is only after three years that the same can be split up and that too from the rural feeder whereas the case of the complainants falls under the urban feeder. After receiving application from the complainants and a few other consumers for getting their load split up, a clarification had been sought from Head Office. It was clarified vide commercial circular No. 17/2005 that splitting of the connection even from the Urban feeder is permissible subject to the condition that such connections are getting metered supply and existing tubewell connection load is 10 BHP at the time of release of original connection. Clause of three years with regard to load extended under the benefit of VDS has also been explained. Complainants have failed to complete the requisite formalities and to produce the requisite documents i.e. Record pertaining to ownership of land and mutation. Since the load has been got extended under VDS and as such, the 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 the shelter of the alleged family partition. They want to make two motor connections under VDS. Moreover, they are not getting metered supply. Connection No. LM-26 was in the name of Nachhattar Singh , borther of the applicants. Nachhattar Singh has expired and his legal heirs namely Jaswinder Singh, and Sukhdeep Kaur had given affidavit that connection has gone to the share of Puran Singh. Earlier connection was of 10 BHP. Subsequently load was got extended to 15 BHP under VDS scheme. Cases of Nazar singh and Gurbaksh Singh were different than that of the case of the complainants.<br /> 4. In support of their allegations contained in the complaint, complainants have produced in evidence affidavit of complainant No. 1 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-2), photocopy of mutation (Ex. C-3), photocopy of payment of receipt (Ex. C-4), photocopy of CC No. 38 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of CC No. 17/2005 (Ex. C-6) and photocopy of memo dated 13.10.04 (Ex. C-7).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Vijay Kumar, SDO has been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant.<br /> 7. Some facts are undisputed before us. They are that electricity connection No. LM-26 AP is in the name of Puran Singh. He deposited Rs. 16,000/- on 30.6.04 and got the load extended from 10 BHP to 15 BHP. Complainants are real brothers. Complainant No. 2 deposited Rs. 1,000/- as fee for splitting the connection on the basis of family partition and copy of the receipt is Ex. C-2. Connection has not been split up into two of 10 BHP and 5 BHP in the names of complainants No. 1 & 2 respectively.<br /> 8. One of the pleas taken in the reply of the complaint by the opposite parties is that complainants did not complete the requisite formalities as they did not produce record of ownership of land and mutation. For this, there is no document to establish it except the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Vijay Kumar, A.E.E./S.D.O. They have not produced any letter revealing that documents regarding ownership and mutation were demanded. In para No. 4 of the complaint, complainants have specifically pleaded that affidavit and all other relevant documents have already been furnished to the opposite parties which are in their possession. Opposite parties do not deny this fact in clear terms. Since there is no specific denial, it would amount to admission on their part. Moreover, complainants have brought on record copy of Mutation No. 18787 which is Ex. C-3. From this document, it is evident that joint land has been partitioned on the basis of family partition. Specific Khasra numbers have fallen to the shares of the complainants. Hence, there is not dispute regarding the family partition and ownership of the land.<br /> 9. Principal argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that complainant No. 1 in whose name there is electricity connection No. LM-26 AP is not getting metered supply and as such, splitting of the electricity connection into two in the names of the complainants is not permissible. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Vijay Kumar and copies of the Commercial Circulars No. 38/2003 and 17/2005 which are Ex. C -5 and Ex. C-6 respectively.<br /> 10. Learned counsel for the complainants argued that commercial circular No. 17/2005 is not applicable to the case in hand as complainant No. 2 had applied for splitting the connection when this circular was not in force. On the basis of family partition, mutation has been sanctioned and duly incorporated in the record of revenue authorities.<br /> 11. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 12. Joint land has been partitioned by way of family partition. Mutation No. 18787 has been sanctioned. Learned counsel for the opposite parties could not point out as to how family partition regarding which mutation has been sanctioned is not genuine. All the official acts performed by the public servants in discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct. Hence we hold that complainants have effected family partition. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was deposited by complainant No. 2 on 31.8.04 as fee for splitting the connection on the basis of family partition. Complainant Puran Singh has submitted his affidavit Ex. C-1 reiterating the averments in the complaint. Material question for determination is as to whether commercial circular No. 17/2005 is applicable to the case in hand. This circular is dated 10.3.05. According to it splitting of tube well 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 was moved on 31.8.04 i.e. much prior to 10.3.05. Learned counsel for the opposite parties failed to show that conditions of getting metered supply and clause of 3 years with regard to load extended under VDS were existing before 10.3.05. Commercial Circular No. 38/2003 was applicable when application for splitting the connection on the basis of family partition was moved in this case. Dy. Chief Engineer Sales for Chief Engineer/Commercial through letter dated 13.10.04, copy of which is Ex. C-7 has clarified that splitting of the load into more than two connections may also be allowed in genuine cases of family partition as per Sales Regular No. 13.6.11. There is nothing in this letter that for getting the connection split up, there should be metered supply. When the complainants applied for getting the connection split up into two, there was no such condition of metered supply. This condition came into force on 10.3.05. 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 10.3.05 or thereafter. Hence, we are of the view that condition under which complainants are being denied the relief prayed for by them, is not applicable. Since opposite parties are not splitting the connection in the genuine case of the complainants, there is deficiency in service on their part towards the complainants.<br /> 13. 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. Facts and circumstances show that they have undergone mental tension and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties for which they deserve some compensation which we assess as Rs. 1,000/-. For this, we are fortified from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission of Madhya Pradesh in the case of J. Radhakrishnan Vs. A. Basheera & Another 2001 (2) CLT 225 (M.P) where in 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 /> 14. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 15. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Split electricity connection No. LM-26 AP of 15 B.H.P. into two of 10 B.H.P. in the the name of complainant No. 1 Puran Singh and 5 B.H.P. in the name of complainant No. 2 Sakatar Singh 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 complainant as compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> Compliance regarding payment of compensation and cost be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) would carry interest @9% P.A. till payment.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 22-03-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member Members<br /> <br /> <br />