DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 134 of 18-05-2007<br /> Decided on : 03-07-2007<br /> <br /> 1.Satwant Singh S/o Gurtej Singh through his attorney Inderjeet Singh S/o Gurtej Singh<br /> 2.Jaswinder Singh S/o Gurtej Singh<br /> - both residents of village Lehra Mohabat, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Complainants<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2. AEE/SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, City Sub Division, Rampura Phul, 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 /> 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. This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by the complainants, seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to split the electricity connection bearing A/c No. LM-438/AP of 15 B.H.P into two of 10 & 5 BH.P. in their names respectively from Urban feeder and not from Rural feeder; pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental sufferings besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainants is that complainant No. 1 was having Electricity Connection bearing A/c No. LM-438/AP of 10 B.H.P. Thereafter load of 5 B.H.P. was got extended by him by way of depositing Rs. 16,000/- vide receipt No. 239 dated 29.6.04. As per scheme of the Board, complainant No. 2 applied for splitting the connection into two i.e. of 10 B.H.P.in the name of complainant No. 1 and of 5 B.H.P. in his name. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was deposited for splitting the connection vide receipt No. 319 dated 9.7.04, book No. 74440. They own considerable land which has been orally partitioned. Now, they are in possession of their respective shares. Partition has been effected by revenue authorities by way of sanctioning mutation in their favour. Entry has been incorporated in the Jamabandi. There is no dispute between them as genuine oral family partition has taken place. All other relevant documents have already been supplied to the opposite parties. They are not splitting the connection. Where splitting is to be done, 20 meters cable is required. Their connection is running from Urban feeder. Splitting is to be done from the Urban feeder whereas opposite parties are adamant to split it from the Rural feeder which is against rules. As per Sales Regulation No. 13.6.10 to 13.6.11, connection can be split into two. Splitting of tube well connection already running on Urban /City feeder was allowed at par with Rural feeder consumers. Condition regarding qualifying period of 3 years is not applicable in their case as their connection of 10 B.H.P. was already running since long. They allege that they are suffering mental tension due to act and conduct of the opposite parties and that they (opposite parties) are deficient in rendering service. Previously opposite parties have given permission to one Nagar Singh S/o Chanan Singh R/o Village Lehra Mohabat for splitting 15 B.H.P. connection into 3 vide memo No. 54101 of 21.8.04 Similar permission was granted to Gurbaksh Singh having connection No. LD-205 of village Lehra Dhurkot and connections 219 & 240 were granted in the names of his sons.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no cause of action; this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complaint is false and frivolous and complainants are not consumers. Splitting of electricity connection 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 Sales Regulations and Commercial Circulars, connection can be split into two and not more to the legal heirs subject to their completing the requisite formalities. In case load of the connection 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 it can be split up and that too from the Rural feeder. Case of the complainant falls under the Urban feeder. After receiving the application from the complainant and some others for getting their load split up, clarification was sought from the Head Office which was given vide Commercial Circular No. 17/2005 according to which splitting up of the connection even from the Urban Feeder was permitted subject to the condition that such connections are getting metered supply and existing tubewell connection load was 10 BHP and above at the time of release of original connection. Clause of three years with regard to load extended under 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 etc., Since 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 have first got the load increased and threreafter they are trying to take the shelter of alleged family partition. Infact they want to make two motor connections under VDS. Moreover, they are not getting metered supply. Hence splitting of the electricity connection is not permissible under PSEB rules. On merits, they do not deny the fact that previously connection bearing A/c No. LM-438/AP of 10 BHP was in the name of complainant No. 1 and he got extended the load upto 5 BHP by way of depositing Rs. 16,000/- vide receipt No. 239 dated 29.6.04. They admit that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was deposited for splitting the connection into two of 10 BHP and 5 BHP in the names of the complainants respectively. Inter-alia, their plea is that case of the complainants is distinguishable from the facts of the cases of Nazar Singh & Gurbaksh Singh. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of their allegations and averments in the complaint, complainants have tendered into evidence affidavit (Ex. C-1) of Inderjeet Singh, attorney of complainant No. 1, photocopy of receipt dated 9.7.04 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of receipt dated 25.8.05 (Ex. C-3) photocopy of general power of attorney (Ex. C-4), photocopy of letter dated 1.3.07 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of Rough Sketch (Ex. C-6), photocopy of memo dated 13.10.04 (Ex. C-7), photocopy of Commercial Circulars 17/2005 & 38 (Ex. C-8 & Ex. C-9 respectively), photocopy of Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 (Ex. C-10) and photocopy of Pass Book (Ex. C-11). <br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex. R-1) of Sh. Gagan Deep Singla, AEE/SDO.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.<br /> 7. Some facts are undisputed in this case. They are that electricity connection No. LM-438/AP is standing in the name of Satwant Singh. Previously its sanctioned load was 10 BHP. Subsequently, load was extended to the extent of 5 HP by way of depositing Rs. 16,000/- by complainant No. 1 under VDS. Copy of the Passbook is Ex. C-11. Complainant No. 2 deposited Rs. 1,000/- on 9.7.04 vide receipt copy of which is Ex. C-2 with the opposite parties for splitting the connection on the basis of family partition. Connection has not been split into two.<br /> 8. 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 evidence of the opposite parties to establish it except the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Gagandeep Singla, AEE/SDO. They have not placed on record any document revealing that record regarding ownership and mutation was demanded. In para No. 5 of the complaint, complainants have specifically pleaded that affidavit and other relevant documents have already been supplied to the opposite parties which are in their possession. There is no specific denial of para No. 5 of the complaint on the part of the opposite parties. They have denied it for want of knowledge. Inderjeet Singh, is the attorney of complainant No. 1.Copy of the General Power of Attorney in his favour is Ex. C-4. He has reiterated the version in the complaint. Complainants have also brought on record copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2000/2001 copy of which is Ex. C-10 according to which Mutation No. 19771 has been sanctioned. Hence , there reamins no dispute regarding family partition and ownership of the land. Complainants are owners in possession of their respective shares. In these circumstances, objection of the opposite parties on this aspect stands repelled.<br /> 9. Principal arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that complainant No. 1 in whose name is the 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, AEE/SDO.<br /> 10. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainants countered the arguments by submitting that Commercial Circular No. 17/2005 is not applicable as complainant No. 1 applied for splitting the connection when this circular was not in force.<br /> 11. We have considered the respective arguments. Material question for determination is as to whether Commercial Circular No. 17/2005 is applicable to the case in hand. This circular is dated 10.3.2005 and copy of the same is Ex. C-8. According to it, splitting of tubewell connection 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 in this case was moved on 9.7.04 by way of depositing Rs. 1,000/- vide receipt copy of which is Ex C-2, i.e. much prior to 10.3.05. 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 10.3.05. Copy of Commercial Circular No. 38/2003 is Ex. C-2. It was applicable when application for splitting the connection on the basis on the family partition was moved in this case on 9.7.04. 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 10.3.05 or thereafter. Hence, we are of the view that conditions under which complainants are being denied the relief being 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 /> 12. 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 into two. Prayer of the complainants that connection be split up from Urban feeder and not from Rural feeder is not justified. It is for the opposite parties to consider from which feeder splitting of the connection is feasible. Board cannot be compelled that connection be released to a consumer from any particular feeder. Facts and circumstances show that complainants have undergone mental tension and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties as connection has not been released within reasonable time. For this, they 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 /> 13. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 14. In the premises written above, 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-438/AP of 15 BHP into two i.e. of 10 BHP in the name of Satwant Singh, complainant No. 1 and of 5 BHP in the name of Jaswinder 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 /> 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 would carry interest @9% P.A. till payment.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 03-07-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> .<br /> <br />