Punjab

StateCommission

FA/87/2014

Darshan Singh Sidhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others - Opp.Party(s)

Naginder Singh Vashist

16 Jan 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No. 87 of 2014                                     

                                    Date of institution: 27.1.2014    

                             Date of Decision:  16.1.2015

 

Darshan Singh Sidhu s/op S. Ajmer Singh, V.P.O. Cheema, District Ludhiana now resident of House No. 1821/5-A, Street no. 2, Moti Bagh, Jagraon, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Ferozepur Road through its Superintendent Engineer.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Raikot, District Ludhiana through its XEN.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Village Roomi, District Ludhiana through its S.D.O.

…..Respondents/OPs

 

First Appeal against the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Sh. N.S. Vashisht, Advocate

          For the respondents        :         Ms. J.K. Gurna, Advocate

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.91 dated 28.1.2013 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the respondents/opposite parties(hereinafter referred as ‘the OPs’) were directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. The order was to be complied within 30 days, failing which they will liable to pay interest @ 9% from the date of order till realisation.  

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the OPs on the allegations that he is an agriculturist and owner of Agricultural land comprising in Khewat No. 184, Khatauni No. 207, Khasra No. 6/7, 8/1, 8/2, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 situated at Village Cheema, Hadbast No. 145, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. He was instructed to install  Micro Sprinkler Irrigation System for which he had obtained permission from Deputy Director, Department of Horticulture vide certificate No. 822 dated 22.6.2010. As per the said certificate, recommendations were made to the opposite party to install electricity tubewell connection in the name of the complainant. The complainant had purchased all the equipments from Santokh Singh & Co., Jagraon Bridge, Ludhiana vide invoice No. 3028 dated 29.5.2010 after spending a sum of Rs. 94,501/- and the said equipment was got fitted in his agricultural land and then he applied for a tubewell connection of 7.5 H.P. with the respondents on 15.7.2010 after paying Rs. 1500/- vide receipt No. 401. He again paid Rs. 500/- vide receipt No. 492 dated 13.7.2010. The Ops had issued demand notice No. 1132 dated 13.12.2010 whereby he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 27,000/-. The complainant thereafter many times approached the Ops to install the said electric tubewell connection in his agricultural land but they had been putting of the matter with one excuse or the other. Then he moved an application in the month of April, 2012 but to no avail. On 22.6.2012 on the request of the complainant, Assistant Executive Engineer of the OPs wrote a letter to the higher authorities at Raikot for installation of the said tubewell connection in the name of the complainant. However, no connection was installed even on 10.7.2012. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Sub Urban Area, Ludhiana issued a letter for allocation of transformer for installation of the connection of the complainant but even then nothing was done. Even thereafter, the complainant approached the ops number of times but with no result, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and according to the regulations of the Ops, they are bound to pay penalty @ Rs. 1000/- per day. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs.

3.                The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable as there was no deficiency in services on the part of the ops. In fact the Additional Superintending Engineer Enforcement-1 had checked the tubewell connection of the complainant vide enforcement checking register No. 37/352 dated 22.6.2010. At that time he found and reported that 26.4, 26.2, 25.9 = 17.5 HP at Volt 410 Sprinkler Motor and found two account numbers as SP2/8 – 12.5 HP, SP2/122-7-7.5 HP, which were mentioned on the pole and he recommended that the action be taken after considering the record. In fact there was one motor and two starters were fixed by the complainant. Both the motors were Submersible and accordingly, the Ops had issued a notice for recovery of RS. 1,95,440/- vide memo No. 380 dated 23.6.2010 to the complainant and complainant filed objections on 29.6.2010. The Ops had also sent a letter to SHO, P.S. Anti Power Theft, Sarabha Nagar, Colony No. 1 vide letter No. 417 dated 29.6.2010 to register the FIR against the complainant. The complainant challenged the said order before Civil Court, Jagraon but subsequently the matter was compromised vide which he had agreed to apply a separate motor i.e. Drip System connection motor with the department and accordingly, he applied for electricity tubewell connection under 7.5 HP in the month of July, 2010 and they had issued a demand notice in the month of October, 2010. In the said demand notice, it was clearly mentioned that the complainant was required to fulfil all the terms and conditions of the said demand notice. Subsequently when the consumer fulfilled the terms and conditions of the said demand notice then they prepared the estimate of work for installation of the drip system vide estimate No. 03696/2010-2011. Due to the pendency of the Civil Suit, they did not install the drip system tubewell connection in the land of the complainant. After the withdrawl of the Civil Suit, the Ops prepared new estimate for installation of the new tubewell vide estimate No. 23726 dated 20.2.2013 and was conveyed by the Addl. S.E. Raikot to S.D.O. Roomi vide memo No. 726 dated 5.3.2013. As such the complaint of the complainant had become infructuous. Same plea was reiterated on merits and it was submitted that the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.  

4.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

5.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. CA, Jamabandi Ex. C-1, certificate Ex. C-2, notice dt. 13.12.2010 Ex. C-6, receipts EXs. C-4 to C-7, letter dt. 22.6.2014 Ex. C-8, period for release of connection Ex. C-9, letter dt. 10.7.2012 Ex. C-10, letter dt. 25.6.2012 Ex. C-11, Ops letter Ex. C-12. On the other hand, the opposite party had tendered into evidence affidavit of Jagdev Singh Hans Ex. RA, checking report Ex. R-1, Micro Sprinkler Certificate Ex. R-2, Demand Notice Ex. R-3, notice Ex. R-4, memo dt. 29.6.10 Ex. R-5, court summons Ex. R-6, copy of Suit Ex. R-7, memo dt. 20.7.10 Ex. R-8, memo dt. 29.7.10 Ex. R-9, amount deposit receipt Exs. R-10, 11, Jamabandi Ex. R-12, application Ex. R-13, affidavit Ex. R-14, memo dt. 3.2.2010 Ex. R-15, detail Ex. R-16, Map Ex. R-17, affidavit Ex. R-18, notices Exs. R-19 & 20, test order Ex. R-21, checking Ex. R-22.

6.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OP, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint as stated above.

7.                Vide order dated 15.5.2014, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed for want of limitation. However, the Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dated 29.9.2014 had set aside the order. The application for limitation was allowed and it was directed to decide the appeal on merits.

8.                In the grounds of appeal, it has been submitted that the complainant had applied for the connection on 15.7.2010. Demand notice was issued on 13.12.2010 and amount was deposited on 24.12.2010. The compensation was required to be paid according to Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission(Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2007 (for short ‘Regulations, 2007’) under which the period for release of connection of low tension wires was 45 days whereas release of supply of High Tension 11000 volts is 60 days. According to the estimate provided by the Ops placed on the record as Ex. R-16 for a sum of Rs. 66,957/- 10 KVA transformer was to be installed for which the cost of Rs. 33,210/- has been fixed, therefore, it required high tension 11000 volts supply and according to the said Regulations, the penalty was Rs. 1,000/- for each day default. Whereas the connection was released during the pendency of the complaint. A fresh estimate No. 23726 dated 20.2.2013 was prepared and was conveyed by Add. S.E. to SDO, Roomi vide letter No. 526 dated 5.3.2013. Although in the written reply no specific date has not been disclosed and certainly, it will be after 5.3.2013.

9.                The counsel for the respondents has argued that he was having one tubewell connection, its inspection was conducted by the Enforcement Staff on 22.6.2010 and it was found that two Starters were working on one connection and accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 1,95,440/- was imposed. The complainant challenged that checking before the Civil Court, therefore, due to pendency of the Civil Suit the connection could not be released and ultimately, the matter was patched up. Before the District Forum, the opposite party had placed on the record only the copy of the plaint, challenging the penalty of Rs. 1,95,440/- and mandatory injunction to restore the connection of SP-2/122. However, during the arguments before us, he has referred that the matter was patched up and the suit was withdrawn. In case the suit was withdrawn then he has withdrawn to challenge the inspection report but there was not understanding between the parties with regard to release of this connection. In case any consumer has mis-used his connection then penalty can be imposed according to the rules and regulations but in case he has applied for new connection, it has no bearing for the release of the said connection, therefore, the pendency of the Civil Suit was no ground not to release the connection. Moreover, the learned District Forum has given the findings regarding deficiency of the Ops not to release the connection and the opposite party has not filed any cross appeal to challenge those findings, therefore, those findings have become final.

10.              Basically this appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation because the learned District Forum has given the compensation just Rs. 10,000/-. The counsel for the appellant contended that his case is covered under Regulations, 2007 under which high tension 11000 volt penalty was Rs. 1,000/- for each day of default. This notification was issued on 29.6.2007 and according to Rule 6.3 (b), the following period has been mentioned for release of the connection:-

Type of service connection requested	Period from date of compliance of Demand Notice within which the Licensee shall provide supply
Low Tension (LT) Supply	45 days
High Tension (HT) supply 11000 volts 33000 volts	60 days 120 days
Extra High Tension (EHT) supply	120 days

 

and penalty clause has been mentioned in Annexure -5 under the title ‘Compensation Payable to Consumers in case of Violation of Minimum Standard of Performance’ as under:-

4.	Release of new connection/additional load/demand feasible from existing network
(a)	xxxxx	xxxxx	xxxxx	xxxxx
(b)	Release of supply – Low Tension	Within 45 days	Rs. 200/- for each day of default	No applicable
(c )	Release of supply – High Tension 11000 Volts	Within 60 days	Rs. 1000/- for each day of default

 

11.              During the course of arguments, the counsel for the opposite party has stated that vide Circular No. 25/2012 issued on 22.8.2012, the maximum limit of compensation payable in case of violation of any standard of performance will be Rs. 5,000/-. But the perusal of this letter would reveal that letter will not be applicable retrospectively. Since the complainant has deposited the requisite fee on 24.12.2010 and two months were completed as on 24.2.2011. Therefore, at that time the said circular referred by the counsel for the opposite parties was not in operation and Regulations, 2007 were applicable according to which the penalty was Rs. 1,000/- for delay of one day. According to the written statement filed by the Ops after preparing new estimate, the intimation was sent to the SDO, Roomi on 5.3.2013 and connection was released thereafter, therefore, atleast there is a delay of more than two years. In case the entire delay is counted the claim will be more than Rs. 7 lacs but the complainant has pegged his claim upto Rs. 5 lacs. Certainly, the complainant is entitled to this amount. The learned District Forum has allowed Rs. 10,000/- in a casual manner without going through the relevant regulation. The counsel for the opposite party was unable to rebut the applicability of Regulations of 2007 and the amount of compensation required to be paid by the respondents/Ops according to those regulations. Therefore, the order of the learned District Forum requires modification.

12.              In view of the above discussion, we accept the appeal. The order of the learned District Forum is modified that instead of Rs. 10,000/- the complainant will be entitled to compensation of Rs. 5 lacs. This amount will be paid by the respondents within 45 days from the passing of the order by this Commission, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

13.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.1.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

14.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

January 16, 2015.                                                                                                                                              (Jasbir Singh Gill)

as                                                                                                                                                                                      Member