DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 171 of 13.5.2019

                                      Decided on:   15.10.2020

Asha Rani aged about 35 years, wife of Sh.Jai Parkash son of Sh.Harish Mani, resident of House No.282, Gali No.10, Virk Colony, DMW, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (Powercom), Head Office:Mall Road, Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. Sub Divisional office, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, West Commercial-, Near Railway Station, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Mohit Kansal, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.P.S.Walia, counsel for OPs.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Asha Rani (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against  PSPCL and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased the house in which she is residing from its previous owner Smt. Sonia Yadav, vide sale deed bearing Vasika No.2018-19/11/1/6198 dated 30.1.2019.After purchasing the house, the complainant applied for electricity connection with the OPs and fulfilled all the requirements .She filled A&A form in this regard.
3. It is averred that initially the OPs raised objection that an electric wire of 66KV passes above the house of complainant but the JE of the OP No.2 gave remarks on the application form that the said wire is passing at a distance of 15 feet and needful can be done in the matter.
4. It is further averred that the area in which the complainant is residing , there are number of houses nearby the house of complainant and electricity meters  have already been installed by the OPs.Therefore, complainant is also entitled to get installed an electricity meter in her house  and  OPs would have  no hesitation to install the meter in the house of complainant.The non installation of the electricity meter in the house of the complainant caused her lot to inconvenience, mental agony, harassment, humiliation and mental tension. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer for directing the OPs to  immediately install the electricity connection; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of inconvenience, mental agony, harassment, humiliation and mental tension suffered by her and also to pay Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Upon notice OPs appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written reply. In reply the OPs admitted that the complainant applied for release of electricity connection except that the wire is passing at a distance of 15 feet.  It is submitted that the JE who gave the report that the wire is passing at a distance of 15 feet was found to be incorrect by A.E.E.(commercial) West Sub Division, PSPCL. It is further submitted that letter No.629 dated 22.3.2019 was written by the said A.E.E. to A.E.E.Technical, East, PSPCL, Patiala, stating that the heights of the 66KV line is not more than 10 feet and an explanation was also sought from the said J.E. It is submitted that the electricity connections are released to the consumer as per the rules and regulations of PSPCL. There is no deficiency in service of the OPs. The OPs denied all other averments made in the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA, copy of sale deed, Ex.C1, copy of jamanandi, Ex.C2, copy of application form, Ex.C3, copy of affidavit of Asha Rani, Ex.C4, copies of electricity bills, Exs.C5 to C7 of the neighbourers, Ex.C8 phtographs(4) and closed the evidence.
7. The ld. counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Er.Jatinder Singh Kanda, AEE West Commercial Divn., PSPCL alongwith documents Ex.C1 copy of letter No.629 dated 22.3.2019, Ex.C2 copy of electricity supply instructions and manual and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the report of the JE is on the file which shows the distance between the house of the complainant and 66KV wire passing overhead. It is further argued that in all the adjoining shops and houses, with the same distance connections have been given. The ld. counsel further argued that as per the report of Local Commissioner also connection has been given in the adjoining shops and houses and  the local commissioner has also attached photographs  alongwith his report and the complaint be allowed.
10. The ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the JE who gave the wrong report that distance is 15feet was charge sheeted. He further argued that distance of the house of the complainant and 66KV wire is 10 feet. The ld. counsel further argued that the connection can only be given as per instructions and rules of the OPs. The ld. counsel has argued that distance is 10 feet, as such the complaint be dismissed.
11. To prove her case, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex.CA wherein she has deposed as per the averments made in the complaint, copy of the sale deed  vide which the complainant purchased the house is Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi,Ex.C2, copy of application vide which the complainant applied for connection is Ex.C3, copy of affidavit is Ex.C4, Ex.C5 is the electricity bill of Vikram Jeet, neighbourer of the complainant,  Ex.C6 is the electricity bills of the another neighbourers Vijay Kumar, Ex.C7 is the another bill of the neighbourer Davinder Singh, Ex.C8 to Ex.C10 are the photographs.
12. In the present case, Local Commissioner was appointed and the detailed report of the local commissioner accompanied by the photographs is on the file. The ld. local commissioner has attached photograph Annexure P1. It is stated that the house shown in the photograph depicts the clear position of the house. In the photographs Annexure P4 to P7, the electric connections shown to have been installed by the PSPCL. In this regard statements of respective owners/residents were also recorded by the local commissioner, which are Annexure A-3.It is mentioned by the ld. local commissioner that in the adjoining house electric connection is already existing but the said person did not give his statement for the reason that they are threatened and pressurized by the AEE/SDO to disconnect his electricity connection. So it is clear from the report of the local commissioner that there are electric connections in the adjoining shops and houses  and even the persons were threatened by the official of the PSPCL not to give statement otherwise connections will be disconnected.
13. No objection was given against this report on behalf of the PSPCL. There are photographs Ex.P7 in which wire were above the shops and electric connections have been given to these shops.
14. There is letter Ex.OP1 of the OPs, wherein the JE gave his report that distance between the house of the complainant and that of 66KV line is 15 feet and this JE was charge sheeted. It is also mentioned in the letter that the distance is not more than 10 feet.
15. There are rules.Ex.OP2 vide which the electric connections were to be given to the houses and shops from where over head 66KV lines are passing.
16. From the report of the local commissioner and the photographs attached with his report, it is clear that the connections have been given by the PSPCL and it is not clear that why the connection has not been given to the present complainant.
17. As already stated above, the official of the PSPCL threatened the adjoining owners not to give statements that have been given electricity connection by the PSPCL, this conduct of official  Jatinder Pal Singh , AEE  is condemnable because when the local commissioner went to the spot, no official of the PSPCL has got right to threaten the person in the presence of the local commissioner.
18. In the present case as the adjoining shops and houses have been given connection, as such the present complaint stands allowed subject to the conditions that officers of the OPs of the rank of Sr.Executive Engineer of the area alongwith concerned sub divisional  officer shall visit the spot and they will see there that if  adjoining houses and shops have been given connection and if the area between the 66 KV line and house of the complainant is sufficient then connection should be installed in the house in dispute and  if the officials find that the officials of PSPCL have given wrong connections to the neighbourers against the rules, then their connections shall also be disconnected and the officials who have allowed the connection should be charge sheeted.          

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Noorder as to costs.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:15.10.2020     

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President