Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/17

Manjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Varinder Kumar , Adv

06 Aug 2015

ORDER

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Manjinder Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for issuance of the following directions to it:-

i)       To restore the electricity connection of his tubewell bore,

ii)      To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & financial loss caused to him,

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist having land at Morinda, wherein an electricity connection bearing consumer No.AP-19-1708 for running a tubewell motor of 10 BHP, has been installed, by use of which, he irrigates his land. On 13.08.2014, he had received a notice from the O.P. asking him to enhance the load from 10 BHP to 15 BHP and demanded a sum of Rs.16,000/- for the said purpose. He had never approached or requested the O.P. for enhancement of the load of his motor. Therefore, he visited to the office of the O.P. to enquire about the matter and its officials told him that they had checked his connection No.AP-192368, which was found to be over load, as against the sanctioned load. He told to them that the said connection does not belong to him and the same belongs to some other person, who is having electricity connection, which stands installed opposite to his electricity connection. He also requested to them that he is not in need of the load more than the sanctioned load, but they were adamant for their illegal act to pressurize him to deposit the amount of Rs.16,000/- for enhancement of the load. The officials of the O.P. also threatened him that in case, he failed to deposit the amount for the said purpose, then they would disconnect the electricity connection of his tubewell bore. A week ago from filing of the instant complaint, the officials of the O.P. came to his tubewell connection, in his absence and disconnected the electricity supply.  He approached and requested the officials of the O.P. many times to restore the electricity connection of his tubewell bore but they are putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The above said act & conduct of the O.P. is clear-cut deficiency in service on its part, due to which he has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and huge financial loss. Hence, this complaint. 

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written version, in the form of affidavit of Sh. Er. Jarnail Singh Bains, Addl. S.E. (Operation Division), taking preliminary objections; that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that it does not lie; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the issuance of electricity connection No. R-63 AP-19-1708 in favour of the complainant, for running a tubewell motor of 10 BHP, is admitted, but it is stated that the said connection of the complainant was checked jointly by Er. Amanpreet Singh Mavi, A.E. Operation Sub Division, Morinda along with Madan Lal, JE and Jagtar Singh, AAE on 13.08.2014, who found that the complainant was using 15 BHP motor, against the sanctioned load of 10 BHP. In this way, he was found using 5 BHP extra load. It was a random checking and along with the checking of the complainant’s motor, connections of other persons were also checked, which included Lekha Singh son of Dial Singh and Parmatma Singh. The checking was recorded in the Consumer Connections Checking Register at Page No. 1 dated 13.08.2014 and the checking report was signed by the above said officials of the O.P. The said checking of the motor of the complainant was conducted by the Er. Amanpreet Singh Mavi with the help of multi meter equipment. In view of the said checking report, notice bearing No.1121 dated 14.08.2014 was served upon the complainant. However, inadvertently, due to oversight/clerical mistake Khata No.AP-19/2368 was mentioned, whereas, in fact, the Khata Number was R63-AP-19/1708 of the complainant. Vide said notice, a sum of Rs.16,000/- was charged, which included a sum of  Rs.1000/- on account of load surcharge and Rs.15,000/- on account of security under the rules. A TDCO was issued and effected. However, the complainant had approached this Forum and got injunction order dated 27.02.2015 vide which the O.P. was directed to restore his supply, subject to deposit of 50% of the total amount, by him. He had deposited the 50% of the said amount and the supply was restored, immediately, on deposit of the said amount. It is further stated that as per norms, in case, the excess load surcharges are deposited, the excess load automatically stands regularized. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made that the complaint be dismissed.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, photocopies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Jarnail Singh Bains, Addl. S.E. Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Sh. Amanpreet Singh Mavi, Asstt. Engineer Ex.OP-2, photocopies of documents Ex.OP-3 to OP-6 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record, carefully.  

 

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is having a tube well connection bearing No. AP-19/1708 of 10 BHP.  He received the impugned notice dated 14.8.2014 (Ex. C2) from the O.P., wherein the electric connection number was mentioned as AP-19/2368. Vide said notice, he was directed to get the load enhanced from 10 BHP to 15 BHP by depositing a sum of Rs.16,000/- for the said purpose. After receipt of the said notice, he approached and made aware the O.P. that it had wrongly issued the said notice to him because connection number mentioned therein does not belong to him. Instead of rectifying its own mistake, the O.P. had illegally disconnected his connection and that too, in his absence, which was got restored as per order dated 27.2.2015, passed by this Forum, on deposit of the 50% of the impugned amount. Neither he had ever used the motor of 15 BHP nor the O.P. had ever checked his connection. He further submitted that the members of the checking team, who had allegedly conducted the checking & submitted report vide Consumer Connections Checking Register, (Ex.OP-3), were required to fill-in all the requisite details of the consumer connections, which were allegedly checked, but they did not do so properly, as per the prescribed rules. Moreover, the checking report (Ex.OP3), does not bear his signatures. Therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside and the 50% amount already deposited by him, as per the order of this Forum, may be got refunded.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that the connection of the complainant was checked on 13.8.2014 and it was found that he was using 15 BHP motor against the sanctioned load of 10 BHP motor. Accordingly, the checking was recorded in the Consumer Connections Checking Register at page No. 1 dated 13.8.2014, which was duly signed by the members of the inspecting team. On the basis of the said checking, the impugned notice dated 14.8.2014 was issued to the complainant. However, instead of mentioning the consumer number as AP-19/1708 of the complainant, the same was mentioned, as AP-19/2368, inadvertently, due to clerical mistake, as has been categorically made clear in the written version filed by the O.P. and the notice was issued correctly to the complainant and he may be directed to get the load enhanced from 10 BHP to 15 BHP by depositing the remaining 50% amount i.e. Rs.8000/- and the complaint filed by him being devoid of merit be dismissed.

 

8.                Admittedly, the electricity connection number of the complainant is AP-19/1708. On 14.08.2014, the O.P. had issued a notice (Ex. C2) to the complainant, on the basis of checking made by the members of the checking team, on 13.8.2014. In the said notice, the tubewell connection number has been mentioned as AP-19/2368. As per own version of the O.P., as pleaded in the written version filed on its behalf, the said connection No. AP-19/2368 was written inadvertently, whereas it should have been AP-19/1708 i.e. the connection, which stands in the name of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of the written version, the O.P. had also moved an application bearing MA No. 32 of 2015 seeking permission to make certain corrections in the written version. From the perusal of the facts mentioned in the said application and the written version filed on behalf of the O.P., it is apparent that as per own version of the O.P. even, the amounts mentioned in the said impugned notice under the different heads i.e. the amount of Rs.1000/- charged under the head—“Load Surcharge” and the amount of Rs.15,000/- charged under the head—“Security” were to be charged under some other heads. It is also not out of place to mention here that although the alleged notice was issued on 14.8.2015 and connection number was written therein wrongly and its contents were also not correctly mentioned, yet no effort was made by the O.P. to issue a fresh notice, after making necessary corrections. Instead of doing so, on the basis of the said notice, the O.P. had even disconnected the connection in question of the complainant, in the month of February, 2015, which was restored, only after filing of the instant complaint, as per the interim order dated 27.2.2015 passed by this Forum. It was only after receipt of notice of this complaint that the O.P. had pleaded that the said connection No. AP-19/2368 was written, inadvertently, whereas it should have been AP-19/1708 and had further moved the above said Miscellaneous Application pleading therein that even the amounts claimed under different heads, in the said notice, were to be claimed under some other heads. In these circumstances, the said notice cannot be said to have been issued by the O.P., in a legal way, after taking into consideration all the actual & factual facts, and depicting therein the true facts. Nodoubt, this Forum has no powers to adjudicate upon the cases pertaining to the theft/unauthorized use of electricity, but since the impugned notice issued by the O.P., was having many discrepancies and was not issued in a legal way, therefore, we set aside the same. The aforesaid acts of the O.P. amount to deficiency in service, accordingly, it is held liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the undue mental agony, physical harassment & financial loss, caused to him, alongwith litigation expenses, in addition to refund of the 50% amount, i.e. Rs.8000/-, already deposited by him as per interim order dated 27.02.2015.

 

9.                In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.P. to pay to the complainant in the following manner:-

i)       To refund the amount of Rs.8000/-,

ii)      To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation,

ii)      To pay Rs.2000/- as litigation costs,

 

The O.P. is further directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

 

10.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                     (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated          : 06.08.2015                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                                                 MEMBER