DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 304
Instituted on: 04.07.2017
Decided on: 13.09.2017
Sanjeev Kumar son of Shri Hem Raj, resident of Ward No.15-C, Kranti Chowk, Near Shiv Mandir, Dhuri, District Sangrur.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary.
2. AEE, SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division City, Dhuri, District Sangrur.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.
For opposite parties : Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Sanjeev Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining one electricity connection bearing account number L71TH480546X with a sanctioned load of 2.00 KW bearing meter number 1176561 within red line of Dhuri and the complainant is using the said connection and has been paying the bills regularly. It is further averred that the said connection was installed in the shop of the complainant where he is running the shop of electrician to earn his livelihood by way of self employment.
2. Further case of the complainant is that on 25.6.2017, the complainant received a letter number 686 dated 23.6.2017 whereby the complainant was asked to produce the ownership documents of the land where the connection has been installed within seven days, failing which to face disconnection of the electricity connection. It is further stated that the said connection was obtained within red line of the city Dhuri and has been using the connection for the last ten years, but the connection of the complainant was disconnected and removed the meter on 30.6.2017 without getting the signatures of the complainant, which is said to be illegal one on the part of the OPs. The complainant approached the Ops so many times to restore the connection, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to restore the said electricity connection and install the meter and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
3. In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the OPs have been dragged into unnecessary litigation, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary party. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the connection in question. It is further admitted that the OPs issued letter dated 23.6.2017, whereby he was asked to produce the ownership documents of the land within seven days. It is stated that on 12.7.2009 the complainant deposited the security and executed application and agreement form in favour of the OPs on 13.7.2009 and submitted the copy of the driving license, as such the Op number 2 issued service connection order dated 17.7.2009 and the same was effected by the concerned JE. Further case of the OPs is that one Er. R.P.Bector moved an application on 21.6.2017 before the Chief Engineer in which it was mentioned that he is absolute owner of the premises and the said Sanjeev Kumar did not submit any proof at the time of obtaining the connection. Thereafter the Op number 2 wrote letter dated 23.6.2017 to the complainant and asked him to submit the ownership documents of the premises, failing which to face disconnection, as such, the complainant did not submit any such document and the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 1.7.2017. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12 copies of the bills and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 copies o documents and Ex.OP-8 affidavit and closed evidence.
5. We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
6. At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the connection in question having number L81TH480546X was obtained by the complainant from the Ops and since then he has been using the connection and paying the bills regularly. Now, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving notice number 686 dated 23.6.2017, Ex.C-2, whereby it has been written to submit the ownership proof of the land within seven days, failing which to face disconnection of the electricity connection. Further grievance of the complainant is that since the complainant obtained the connection in question after submission of the application form Ex.OP-1 and also submitted the copy of the driving license and the complainant was in possession/occupier of the land, as such the Ops issued the connection in the year 2009 after getting deposited the due security. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the Ops have no right to disconnect the connection in question as the complainant is in occupation of the land in question where the connection is installed since long. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had obtained the connection in the year 2009 after submission of the A&A form and proof and further after depositing the security and since then he has been using the connection. Further section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. As such, the Ops provided the connection in question to the complainant in the year 2009, but issued notice to the complainant in the year 2017 to produce the ownership documents, more so when section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 provides that the electricity connection can be provided to the occupier of the land. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops acted illegally in disconnection of the electricity connection in question of the complainant.
7. Further a bare perusal of the order dated 27.7.2017 reveals that the connection of the complainant was ordered to be restored in favour of the complainant till the pendency of the complaint. Now, as discussed above, the whole of the case goes in favour of the complainant and we find that the Ops had disconnected the electricity connection in violation of section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act, but the same was later on restored vide orders dated 27.7.2017 of this Forum and the order dated 27.7.2017 is hereby confirmed.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant for want of ownership of the land only, as he is occupier of the land since long. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
September 13, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
