BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.53 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 06.02.2018

      Date of Decision: 29.11.2021

Kulbir Singh aged about 62 years son of late Charan Singh resident of Village Sahlapur Tehsil Shahkot Dist. Jalandhar presently residing in U.S.A. through attorney Baljit Singh son of late Charan Singh resident of Village Sahlapur Tehsil Shahkot Dist. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Sub         Divisional Officer, Sub Division Shahkot, Dist. Jalandhar.

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Additional        Superintendent Engineer, Urban Division Nakodar, Dist.    Jalandhar.

3.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman,         The Mall Patiala.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:        Sh. G. S. Jhand, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.                        Sh. K. L. Dua, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant through his attorney Baljit Singh, who is the brother of the complainant, wherein he has alleged that the complainant has applied for the Tube-well connection for agriculture purpose and in December 2016 an estimate of Rs.1,18,833/- was passed by the OP for installation of the Tube Well Connection of 7.5 BHP and the said amount after deduction of the labour charges was deposited in December 2016 with the OP. That after observing the requisite formalities, Tube-well Connection bearing A/C No.AP50/8377 was issued to complainant in the first week of March 2017. At the spot electricity poles with wires and other equipments were installed for the purpose of providing electricity supply to the said Tube-well connection of complainant from the 11 KVA line (Buddanwal Feeder). At that time only transformer of 10 KVA remains left to be installed for which an amount of Rs.34,870/- as mentioned at serial no.21 in the material list was already deposited by complainant but the Transformer has not been provided to the complainant even after repeated requests in this regard during the last one year. That non supply of the Transformer to complainant for such a long time amounts to deficiency in services on the part of Opposite Parties and under compelling circumstances complainant was forced to make arrangement of Generator for the irrigation of his crops for which he has to bear unwarranted extra expenditure. Initially Opposite Party No.1 & 2 withheld the Transformer on the pretext of shortage of the same although Transformers to all other consumers of the surrounding area were provided. That now after enquiry it reveals that the Transformer which is to be provided to the complainant has already been withdrawn from the store of PSPCL along with other material as mentioned in the Material list and the said Transformer is lying with Opposite Party No.1, which has not been intentionally provided by OPs No.1 & 2 on account of their ill will against Baljit Singh who is brother as well as attorney of the complainant. It is worth mentioning that Baljit Singh has filed a suit on 3-7-2015 against the Opposite Parties including one other person namely Akashpreet Singh, regarding another Tube-well connection of 5H.P having original A/C No.BS2/452 and computerized A/C No.AP/50/201, which is now pending for 30-1-2018 in the Hon'ble Court of Sh . R.S. Rana Civil Judge ( J.D ) Nakodar . During pendency of the said suit , two false cases of electricity theft were got registered against Baljit Singh in order to pressurize him to withdraw the said suit and to help the opposite party Akashpreet Singh etc. in the said suit. On this Baljit Singh made a complaint dated 18-9-2015 through registered post to the DGP PSPCL Vigilance and Security Patiala against exorbitances of Parmjit Gogia then SDO PSPCL Sub Division Shahkot. Opposite Party no.1 & 2 who are acting arbitrarily, asked Baljit Singh that they will provide the Transformer in case he withdraws the titled suit and deposit full amount of fine for alleged electricity theft but Baljit Singh refused to do so because case regarding alleged electricity theft is already pending in the Hon'ble Court of Add . Sessions Judge Jalandhar which is now fixed for 19-3-2018. Opposite Party no.1 & 2 in order to save their skin in these cases, are pressurizing Baljit Singh to withdraw the said civil suit and to deposit full amount of fine as they knew it well that Baljit Singh will be acquitted in the said false case of electricity theft. That as Baljit Singh refused to bow before such unwarranted demand of the Opposite Party no.1 & 2, they now openly started saying that Transformer will not be provided to the complainant at any cost as they are having instructions from the Electricity Minister (now ex-minister) Gurjit Singh Rana not to provide the Transformer and cancel the Tube-well connection of the complainant. On this complainant served the opposite parties including Electricity Minister Gurjit Singh Rana with Regd. Legal notice dated 24-10-2017 thereby calling upon the opposite parties to issue the Pass Book and provide 10KVA T/F for the Tube-well Connection bearing A/C no.AP50/8377 of the complainant. That the said notice was only replied by opposite party no.1 vide letter bearing no.76 dated 16-1-2018 who refused to do the needful on the pretext that as per the Department instructions, Tubewell connection cannot be released unless and until full amount of the fine for electricity theft is not deposited. Opposite party no.1 has made false allegations in the said reply against the complainant of having committed electricity theft and of depositing the fine amount. It is to be noted that complainant is residing in U.S.A since long, who has been falsely blamed for having committed electricity theft, regarding which complainant reserves his right to sue opposite party no.1 for defamation. That the Opposite Parties are acting arbitrarily against the law without any legal and valid reason because even otherwise complainant cannot be linked up in any manner with Baljit Singh for any alleged electricity theft. It is to be noted that Baljit Singh has already deposited half of the fine amount as per directions of Sh. Jagmohan Singh Sanghe Add. Sessions Judge Jalandhar and the said case of alleged electricity theft is still pending. Thus opposite parties are not having any authority to enforce either complainant or his brother Baljit Singh to deposit full amount of fine without waiting for decision of the court. Thus no ground is made out for the opposite parties thereby refusing to provide the Transformer to complainant and to issue the Pass Book. It is also clarified that even no case of electricity was ever found at the place where the Tubewell connection in question is to be installed as falsely alleged by the OP No.1 in his reply. That the OPs by denying request of the complainant, have acted in a most unprofessional manner who are guilty for rendering deficient and negligent services as contemplated under the Act and causing mental pain, agony, harassment to the complainant and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the       complainant may kindly be accepted and OPs  be directed to issue the Pass Book and to provide 10 KVA T/F for the Tube-well Connection bearing A/C No.AP50/8377 of the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- u/S 14 (1) (d) of the Act and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.35,000/- as complainant has to bear unwarranted extra expenditure for the irrigation of his crops thereby making arrangement of the Generator and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not disclosed the true facts and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. It is further averred that the connection has been applied at the place where earlier two times theft of electricity have been detected and as per the rules and regulations of the power corporation the connection cannot be released at that place. That the Baljit Singh is not the duly constituted attorney of Kulbir Singh who is residing abroad. That Baljit Singh is infact misusing the land of the complainant Kulbir Singh and earlier theft was detected on the said land. It is further averred that earlier the theft as detected at the place where the present connection has been applied and the case was registered which is pending in the Court of Sh. Jaswinder Singh, ADJ, Jalandhar. That the present complaint is a misuse of the process of this Court and as such the complainant is liable to be burdened with heave costs. On merits, the factum in regard to apply for the tubewell connection for agricultural purpose in December, 2016 by the complainant is admitted and further it is also admitted that estimate of Rs.1,18,833/- was passed by the OP for the installation of the tubewell connection. It is also admitted that the said amount after deduction of the labour charges were deposited in December, 2016 and further admitted that the electricity poles with wires and other equipments were installed for the purpose of providing electricity supply to the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17 and Ex.CX and then closed the evidence.

4.                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by learned counsel for the complainant as well as case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has filed the present complaint through his attorney Baljit Singh. Baljit Singh is alleging that the OPs have not installed the Transformer of 10 KVA in his land despite the depositing of the entire amount by the complainant. It has been admitted by the OPs that the complainant Kulbir Singh applied for the Tube-well connection for an agriculture purposes in December, 2016 and Rs.1,18,833/- were deposited by the complainant for the installation of the Tube-well connection. It is also admitted that the electricity polls with wires and other equipments were installed for the purpose of providing electricity supply to the complainant.

7.                The defence of the OP is that the attorney of the complainant namely Baljit Singh is not entitled to get installed the transformer on behalf of the Kulbir Singh as he has committed theft of electricity on that part of land and as per the rules and regulations of OPs, if theft is detected from a particular place, then the connection cannot be released at that place. It has been alleged by the OPs that a separate civil suit is pending which was filed by Baljit Singh and FIR was also registered against Baljit Singh. The theft was detected twice, therefore, the transformer was not installed on the same place.

8.                Perusal of Ex.C-1 shows that Kulbir Singh executed general power of attorney in favour of Baljit Singh being his brother and in this attorney Baljit Singh has specifically been authorized to get electricity connection, tube-well connection and to do other acts on behalf of Kulbir Singh. Documents have been filed on record to show that the amount has been deposited and the process was completed by the OPs for the installation of the transformer and the Tube-well connection. This fact has been admitted by OPs also. It is also proved on record that the process was completed in the year 2016, but the transformer has not been installed till today and he had to use generator to irrigate his land and on 24.10.2017, vide Ex.C-10, the legal notice was served upon the OPs, but to no effect rather Ex.C-12 was written by the OPs to the counsel for the complainant, in reply to the Ex.C-10. Perusal of Ex.C-12 shows that it was mentioned by OP that as per the instructions of the department, the complainant has been found committing theft and unless and until he deposits the entire amount of theft of electricity, the connection cannot be released and transformer cannot be installed.

9.                Now the point in controversy is as to whether the brother of the complainant was found committing theft in the agriculture land of the complainant or somewhere else, if so, its effect on the present case. It is admitted that the civil suit has been filed by Baljit Singh against OPs and he was booked for theft of electricity also. No rules and regulations have been filed on record by the OPs to show that once the theft of electricity is found somewhere by some person, no connection can be released on the same land.

10.              As per the record and pleadings of the parties, the Tube-well connection of the complainant was bearing account No.AP50/8377 and they were to provide transformer for this connection, whereas perusal of Ex.C-14 shows that a suit has been filed by Baljit Singh against the OPs and other persons regarding the Tube-well connection bearing account No.AP/50/201. Ex.C-X shows that an FIR was registered against Baljit Singh for running a motor of 5 BHP at his fields for the last 1½ years. It was admitted by the OPs that Baljit Singh deposited necessary shifting charges as per estimate of shifting and the new connection was to be released from another transformer known as 63 KVA Avtar Singh Wala transformer. Perusal of all the documents relied upon the complainant and the admission of the OPs, it is clear that the theft of electricity is a separate and different matter. Baljit Singh has already been acquitted from these charges vide Ex.CX. The account of the complainant regarding Tube-well connection is all together different. Baljit Singh has been authorized to get released the connection on the land of Kulbir Singh. It has not been proved that the theft was committed on the same land, even if it is so, then the complainant has every right to get installed the Tube-well connection once he has deposited the entire amount for the said purposes. Merely on the ground that the cases are pending against Baljit Singh and Baljit Singh was found committing theft of electricity, he cannot be denied to get the connection on behalf of his brother for which the entire amount has been deposited with the OPs.

11.              So, under these circumstances, it is proved that despite the depositing of the entire amount and completion of the process of installation of the Tube-well connection, transformer was not installed since March, 2017, the date of issuing the account No.AP50/8377. There is a complete deficiency in providing the services by the OPs to the complainant and as such, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.

12.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to issue the pass book and to provide transformer for the Tube-well connection bearing account No.AP50/8377 as per record. Further, the OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.45,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant, for arranging generator to irrigate his land and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

13.              Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna                Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj     

29.11.2021         Member                          Member           President