Punjab

Hoshiarpur

CC/14/158

Ganesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. C.S. Marwaha

14 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOSHIARPUR
(3RD FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HOSHIARPUR)

                                                                     C.C. No.  158/17.07.2014
                                                                     Decided on :  14.01.2015

Ganesh Sharma s/o Shiv Dyal R/o Village Amirpur Jattan, P.O. Tanda, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur.

                                    Complainant

                                         vs.

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chief Managing Director, the Mall Patiala.
2.Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division Bhangala, District Hoshiarpur through its Assistant Executive Engineer (Sanchalan).

                                    Opposite parties

 Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:    Sh. Ashok Kumar,President.
                 Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary, Member.
                 Mrs. Sushma Handoo,Member. 

Present:      Sh.C.S. Marwaha, counsel for the complainant.
                  Smt.Unita Uppal, counsel for the OPs. 

ORDER 
PER ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
1.          The complainant has filed the present complaint  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chief Managing Director and another (hereinafter referred to as OP No.1 & OP No.2 respectively, for short) praying for a direction to the OP to restore the electricity supply immediately and to pay  Rs. 1,75,000/- as loss suffered due to the death of birds in the poultry farm and further to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation  Rs. 15,000/- as  litigation costs. 
2.         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he  is carrying on the business of poultry farm in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment. Complainant got electricity connection from the OP bearing Account No. AN 440777W and the complainant has been paying all the electricity bills received by him from the OP.  It is averred that the brother of the complainant earlier filed a complaint against the OP before this Forum and during the proceedings of the said complaint, OP no. 2 has been pressurizing the brother of the complainant to withdraw the said complaint but he refused to do so. However, vide order dated 13-05-2014 of this Forum, the said complaint was partly allowed and the OP was directed to refund Rs. 1,22,540/- illegally charged from the brother of the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from 18-09-2012 till its realization and further to pay litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to the brother of the complainant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. After the decision of the said complaint, the OP no. 2 spared no pains to make hell of the life of the brother of the complainant and his family members including the complainant one way or the other by adopting illegal methods. It is further averred that after the decision of the said complaint, the OP no. 2 on 22-05-2014 came at the residence of the brother of the complainant and poultry farm of the complainant alongwith J.E. and four employees and disconnected both the electric connections alleging that the brother of the complainant and the complainant are not entitled to use the feeder in which their electric connections have been connected. The complainant and his brother told them that there are other consumers whose electricity connections have been connected with the feeder in question and that they are also enjoying the electricity supply from the said feeder but they did not care and forcibly disconnected both the connections illegally. At that time number of villagers gathered at the spot and requested OP no. 2 not to take harsh decision but  instead of acceding their request they insulted the complainant and his brother in their presence. The OP disconnected the electric connections of the complainant and his brother in the peak summer season with mala fide intention to harass them due to grudge of the decision of this Forum in favour of his brother  . It is further averred that after disconnection of electricity supply, the complainant and his brother visited the office of OP No.2 and requested to restore the electricity supply but it refused to do so. Due to disconnection, more than 1000 birds in the poultry farm of the complainant were died within three days  and he suffered a loss of Rs.1,75,000/-.  Finding no option, the complainant and his brother got issued a legal notice dated 27-05-2014 to  OP no.2 requesting it to restore the electricity supply within two days from the receipt of the legal notice and also to pay damages to the complainant and his brother but no reply was received from the OP. It is further averred that no notice had been given by the OP to the complainant before disconnecting the electricity supply. Thus, disconnection of the electricity without notice itself amounts to deficiency in the service on the part of the OP . So, the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed  as stated at the outset of this order.
3.         On notice,   OPs filed  joint contested written statement  taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in its present form; the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and he has concealed the material facts ; the complainant is not consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act because it is commercial connection; the disputed electric connections were illegally and unauthorizedly connected to the electric supply line of Urban Pattern Supply, Tanda Feeder in violation of Sections 126, 138, 139, 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and it is a case of unauthorized use of electricity and also is a criminal offence and as such this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is replied that in fact the complainant is a businessman and running the commercial business of poultry farm at large scale. Thus, he does not fall under the definition of consumer as prescribed in the Act. It is admitted that complaint filed by the brother of the complainant before this Forum was partly allowed on 13-05-2014 but it is denied  that during the proceedings of the said complaint, the OP no. 2 had been pressurizing him to withdraw the said complaint. It is replied that the OP filed an appeal before Hon’ble State Commission against the order dated 13-05-2014 and the Hon’ble State Commission has granted stay in favour of OP.  It is denied that after the decision of the said complaint, the OP no. 2 spared no pains to make hell of the life of the complainant and his family members on one way or other by adopting illegal method. In fact, the complainant and his brother had adopted illegal method for obtaining 24 hours Urban pattern Supply from Tanda Feeder and violated the rules and regulations of Powercom and the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. It is further replied that the electric connections of the complainant and his brother were checked  on 23-04-2014 by AE/OP, Sub Division, Bhangala vide checking report No. 35/184 dated 23-04-2014 and it was found that the above said electric connections were illegally and unauthorizedly connected to the electric supply line of Urban Pattern Supply line of Tanda Feeder in violation of Sections 126, 138, 139 and 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which is a case of unauthorized use of electricity (UUE) and is a criminal offence. In respect of the above checking, the registered notices to the complainant as well as to his brother  Suresh Sharma were issued vide memo no. 1598 dated 24-04-2014 and memo no. 1597 dated 24-04-2014 and the electric connections were disconnected due to non- compliance of the above said notice. The OP even approached the concerned S.H.O in this regard. It is replied that the electric supply to the complainant was given from the Salerian AP Feeder as per A & A Form. The complainant never submitted any application with OP for transfer of his electric supply from AP Feeder Salerian to Tanda Feeder Urban Pattern Supply. The complainant taking advantage of orders dated 13-05-2014 of earlier complaint filed by his brother attached his disputed electric connection with Urban pattern Supply from Tanda feeder. The Tanda feeder was not even extended and electrified at the time of release of disputed electric connection of the complainant. If he would have given any request for change of his disputed electric supply from AP Feeder Salerian to Tanda feeder supply, then the poles , wires and other apparatus which were used at the time of release of disputed connection were to be dismantled and  an estimate was to be prepared and proper order was to be passed after following rules and regulations of Powercom. It is denied that the OP disconnected the electric connections of the complainant and his brother in the peak summer season with mala fide intention to harass them   and their family members due to grudge of the decision of this Forum pronounced in favour of the brother of the complainant. It is denied that after disconnection of the electricity supply, the complainant and his brother visited the office of OP no. 2 and requested them to restore the electricity supply but it refused. It is further replied that both the brothers were given opportunity before disconnection of the said connections and it is denied that  no notice had been given by the OP before disconnecting the electricity supply. It is also denied that complainant suffered loss of Rs.1,75,000/- as more than 1000 birds in his poultry farm were died within three days due to disconnection. In this way, there is no deficiency in  service on the part of the OP . So, complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4.         Both the parties wanted to lead evidence  to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. C-1, bill receipts Mark C-2 , Mark C-3, newspaper clippings Mark C-4 to Mark C-6, memo Mark C-7, copy of order Mark C-8 and closed the evidence.
5.         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Kuldip Singh Ex. OP-1,  Jagir Singh  Ex. OP-2, checking report Mark OP-3, A & A form Mark OP-4, memo Mark OP-5, postal receipt Ex. OP-6, service connection Ex. OP-7, service register Mark OP-8 & Mark OP-9 and closed the evidence. 
6.         We have heard  learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.
7.         Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the OP no. 2 alongwith J.E. and four employees on 22-05-2014 came at poultry farm of  complainant and the  residence of his brother Suresh Sharma and disconnected both the electric connections without notice alleging that the complainant and his brother are not entitled to use the feeder to which their electric connections have been connected. The complainant and his brother told them that there are other consumers whose electricity connections have been connected with the feeder in question but to no use. The OP disconnected the electric connections of the complainant and his brother in the peak summer season with mala fide intention to harass them due to grudge of the decision of this  Forum . So, the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed .
8.         Learned counsel for the OPs has however repelled the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground  that in fact the complainant is a businessman and running the commercial business of poultry farm at large scale. Thus, he does not fall under the definition of consumer as prescribed in the Act.  She has further contended that the electric connections of the complainant and his brother Suresh Sharma were checked on 23-04-2014 by AE/OP, Sub Division, Bhangala and it was found that the above said electric connections were illegally and unauthorizedly connected to  Urban Pattern Supply line of Tanda Feeder in violation of Sections 126,138, 139 and 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which is a case of unauthorized use of electricity (UUE) . Thereafter, the registered notices  were issued to them vide memo no. 1598 dated  24-04-2014 and memo no. 1597 dated 24-04-2014 and the electric connections were rightly disconnected due to non- compliance of the above said notice. 
9.         We have anxiously considered  the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record.
10.         The first contention raised by the counsel for the OP is that the complainant is a businessman and is running the commercial business of poultry farm at large scale so, he does not fall under the definition of consumer as given in the Act. The complainant has specifically averred in para no.1 of his complaint that he is carrying on the business of poultry farm in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment. On the other hand, no evidence in support of the aforesaid plea  has been led by the OP that the complainant is running the business of poultry farm at large scale to earn huge profit and has employed workers.  Therefore, it is held that complainant is consumer of the OP as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and complaint filed by him is well maintainable. 
11.         The second contention raised by OP is that above said electric connections were illegally and unauthorizedly connected by the complainant and his brother to  Urban Pattern Supply line of Tanda Feeder for obtaining 24 hours power supply. However, a close perusal of letter/complaint dated 15.7.2011 Mark C7 written by AEE, Bhangala to Sr. Executive Engineer, Mukerian shows that KLG company had connected connections of Dera Gyan Singh  etc. with 24 hours  supply without any correspondence or permission or authorization of OP . When the employees of AEE, PSPCL Bhangala visited that place to disconnect those connections from 24 hours supply, the consumers of those connections protested and nothing appears to have been done. It is worthwhile to point out here that as per form A & A Mark OP-4, connection to the complainant was to be given from 11 KV Naushehra Feeder instead of Salerian Feeder as alleged by the OP. It is the specific stand of the complainant in para no.4 of his complaint that his electricity connection and that of his brother besides other consumers were connected already with  the feeder in question i.e. Urban Supply Tanda Feeder . It was incumbent upon the OP to explain with the help of record how the connection of the complainant came to be shifted from Naushehra Feeder to Salerian Feeder and that it was not in any way falling in Dera Gyan Singh which falls within the area of Naushehra/Salerian Feeder .  However, the OP has failed to clarify the position in this respect in the corresponding para of written statement filed by it. It continued to harp on that complainant was given supply from Salerian AP Feeder as per A & A Form which is not the position as noted above. In the absence of anything to the contrary, from the aforesaid letter,  it appears that the electricity connections of the complainant and his brother were  connected to 24 hours supply line/feeder by KLG Company alongwith other consumers and not by them of their own . The checking report dated  23.4.2014 Mark OP3 in the given set of circumstances simply pales into insignificance.
12.          Further, the line from where the said connections are  alleged to have been connected by the complainant and his brother  is admittedly 11KV Line which is a high voltage line and while doing  work thereupon firstly the supply of the said line is required to be disconnected  and only then employees of the OP can work on it. So, it is otherwise unbelievable that  said connections were connected by the complainant and his brother themselves or with the help of some private electrician. In this way,  no cogent, reliable and clinching evidence is forthcoming from the side of the OP to prove that complainant had indulged in unauthorized use of electricity. Therefore, the  disconnection of the  electricity connection of the complainant on that ground amounts to serious deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has alleged in his complaint that more than 1000 birds were died in his poultry farm within three days due to disconnection. However, no iota of evidence has been led by the complainant in this respect   so, he is not entitled to any relief on this account.
         As a sequel to our above discussion, the complainant is found entitled to the restoration of electricity connection alongwith appropriate compensation for harassment and mental agony besides  costs for avoidable litigation to which the complainant has been unnecessarily put by the OPs. 
13.         In view of our above observations and findings, the  complaint filed by complainant is partly accepted with a direction to the OPs to confirm restoration of the electricity supply of the complainant from Urban Supply Tanda Feeder  and further to pay to him Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 15.7.2014 till realization.  Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 
Announced. 
    14.01.2015

       (Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary)    (Mrs. Sushma Handoo)     (Ashok Kumar )
                                 Member                            Member               President 

SS