Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/591

Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.Kalsi Adv.

19 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 591 dated  23.12.2019.      

                                                Date of decision: 19.12.2022. 

 

Om Parkash aged about 70 years son of Sh. Lala Dass, Resident of H. No.1704, St. No.1, Mohalla Fatehgarh, Near Chand Cinema, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                 ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. The Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Unit-I Sub Division, Near Old Sabzi Mandi, Opp. Chhawani Mohalla, G.T. Road, Ludhiana, through its Executive Engineer.                                                                                                                                                            …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. A.K. Kalsy, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. G.S. Pahwa, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant applied for installation of two commercial electric connections on the ground floor of the property bearing No.1704 situated at St. No.1, Mohalla Fatehgarh, Near Chand Cinema, Ludhiana and deposited Rs.3630/- each vide two separate receipts No.3005315277 (Ex. C1) and 3005315374 (Ex. C2) of even dated 19.11.2019 for each connections. These connections were required by the complainant for self employment to earn livelihood for himself and for his family members for carrying out karyana business on the said property. The opposite parties did not install the commercial electric connection despite the deposit of amount and complying with all conditions for installation of the electric connections. On 20.12.2019, the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties and requested them to install the electric connection but they kept the matter pending on one pretext or the other. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is also entitled to compensation. In the end, the complainant prayed for direction to the opposite parties to install two commercial electric connections in the property No.1704, St. No.1, Mohalla Fatehgarh, Near Chand Cinema, Ludhiana and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation as well as Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.        

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objection that the compliant is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is the complainant who is at fault and he had applied for grant of two separate electric connections under NRS category without disclosing the fact that the property in question is in dispute. Sh. Hans Raj and Anant Ram sons of Sh Lala Ram, residents of Love Kush Nagar moved an application stating therein that the property in question is owned by five brothers namely Hans Raj, Anant Ram, Om Parkash, Des Raj and Sham Lal and they have further stated that without their consent, the electric connection should not be granted in the name of the complainant in the joint property which is in dispute. However, the job order for device installation for contract account No.3005315277 was issued on 19.11.2019 upon the application of the complainant and for the installation of electric connection, the site was also visited by the representative of Assistant Executive Engineer, Tech-1, under City Central Division, Ludhiana and it was reported that the sale deed is in the name of five brothers out of which Hans Raj and Anant Ram have filed the written complaint with regard to the dispute between the co-owners and connection should not be given without their written consent. On the basis of the said report, the application for grant of commercial connection filed by the complainant was cancelled and the other application was also cancelled for the same reason. The memos bearing No.365 and No.366 dated 28.01.2020 were sent to the complainant informing him that due to the objections filed by the brothers of the complainants and due to dispute in respect of property in question, his applications have been cancelled. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. While giving para wise reply, the opposite parties reiterated the facts mentioned in the preliminary objections and submissions and once again denied for having indulged in unfair trade practice or there was deficiency in service and prayer for dismissal of the complaint against them also made.  

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated his averments of the complaint. The complainant in his affidavit also stated that the property No.1704 was originally in the name of five brothers i.e. Hans Raj, Anant Ram, Desh Raj, Sham Lal and the complainant. But about 40 years back, the property No.1704 was orally partitioned by meets and bounds and since then all the share holders are in exclusive possession of their respective shares having separate gate, water and sewerage connection, electricity connection etc. The property of the complainant is also assessed property tax and the receipt of the property tax for the year 2019-20 proves the same. The above said other persons have no connection with the property of the complainant where the electric connection is to be installed. All the properties have bifurcating walls and separate entrance and separate entity. The UID number of the property of the complainant is B002-03987. The objection raised by Sh. Hans Raj and Anant Ram is baseless and has no legs to stand upon. .h Desh Raj son of Sh. Lala Dass, resident of H. No.1704, St. No.1, Mohalla Fatehgarh, Near Chand Cinema, Ludhiana submitted his affidavit Ex. CB by stating that the complainant is his brother who applied for installation of two commercial connections for earning his livelihood by doing karyana business on the ground floor of his property by depositing requisite fee against receipts but the opposite parties did not install the commercial electric connections. He has further deposed that all the brothers have already orally separated their respective properties out of property No.1704 for the last about 40 years and since then all the brothers have their separate properties in all manners as the property No.1704 has been partitioned by meets and bounds and there are bifurcating wall in all the properties and all the brothers are living separately in their respective portions after the partition. The property of the complainant is also assessed to the property tax against UID No.B002-03987. The complainant also placed on record copy of receipts as Ex. C1 and Ex. C2, property tax receipt Ex. C3, copy of demand note for new non-domestic connection Ex. C4, copy of contract agreement for release of new connection Ex. C5, copy of undertaking of the complainant Ex. C6, copy of self declaration Ex. C7 and copy of adhar card of Desh Raj as Ex. C8 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit ex OPA of Sh. Sukaran Singh Grewal, Senior Executive Engineer, City Central Division (Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. OP1 is he copy of letter No.366 dated 28.01.2020 regarding cancellation of request, Ex. OP2 is copy of complaint written by Hans Raj and Anant Ram to the opposite parties, Ex. OP3 is the copy of job order for device installation, Ex. OP4 is the copy of demand note for new connection non-domestic and Ex. OP5 copy of contract agreement of the complainant and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                It is apparent that the applications of the complainant for grant of commercial electric connections were cancelled and the complainant was intimated on 28.01.2020 vide two separate letters Ex. OP1. The cancellation was done on the basis of objections raised by the brothers of the complainant namely Hans Raj and Anant Ram. The complainant was not afforded of any opportunity of being heard before cancellation of his applications. Had the opposite parties given an opportunity to the complainant to explain with regard to the objections, the opposite parties could have appreciated the contentions of the complainant to the effect that the said property was orally partitioned by meets and bounds about 40 years back and all the share holders are in exclusive possession to the extent of their shares and they are having separate gate, water and sewerage connection, electricity connection etc. The property in possession of the complainant has UID No.B002-03987 duly issued by the local authorities vide document Ex. C3 i.e. Property Tax Return Assessment Report of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. Violation of the principle of natural justice has resulted in mis-carriage of justice. The counsel for the complainant has drawn attention of this Commission towards Chapter III of 5.1 of Supply Code, 2014 which is reproduced as under:-

‘5.1. Every distribution licensee shall, on receipt of an application from the owner or occupier of any premises located within its area of supply provide electricity to the premises within the time specified in regulation 8 of the Supply Code provided the applicant complies with the procedure including the payment of various charges specified in the Supply Code.

It is well settled law that the electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. The electricity connection cannot be declined on the ground that the co-owners have objections in this regard.  The only point which is required to be determined is that whether the complainant is in occupation of the premises in question or not.

                   It is mentioned in the written statement that the representative of Assistant Executive Engineer, Tech-1, City Central Division, Ludhiana also visited the spot. The said representative could have easily gathered that the complainant is in occupation of the premises for which the electric connections are being sought for. In this regard, reliance can be made to case title Dilip (Dead) through Lrs. Vs Satish & Others in Criminal Appeal N.810 of 2022 decided on13.05.2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby it has been held that the electricity cannot be declined to tenant on ground of failure/refusal of landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises. As such, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. In the given facts and circumstances, it would  be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are directed to install the two electric connections in the property of the complainant along with composite cost of Rs.10,000/-.

7                 As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to install two commercial electric connection in the property bearing No.1704, St. No.1, Mohalla Fatehgarh, Near Chand Cinema, Ludhiana on the basis of original applications already submitted by the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                          President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:19.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Om Parkash Vs PSPCL                                        CC/19/591

Present:       Sh. A.K. Kalsy, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. G.S. Pahwa, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to install two commercial electric connection in the property bearing No.1704, St. No.1, Mohalla Fatehgarh, Near Chand Cinema, Ludhiana on the basis of original applications already submitted by the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:19.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.