Haryana

Ambala

CC/283/2014

GURTEJ SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

P.S SHARMA

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                           Complaint Case No. :  283 of 2014

Date of Institution    :   14.10.2014

Date of Decision      :   10.08.2015

 

Gurtej Singh S/o Sh. Jasmer Singh R/o village Ramgarh, P.O. Gokalgarh, Sub Tehsil Mullana, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

                                      ……Complainant.

Versus

1.         Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Sadan, Sector-6, Panchkula, through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVNL, Naraingarh, District Ambala.

2.         The Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, UHBVNl,Naraingarh, District Ambala.

                                                                                                               ……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. P.S. Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. R.S. Saini, Adv. for Ops.

ORDER.

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that he alongwith his brother Gurmail Singh is owner in possession of land about 8 Acres situated  at village Ramgarh, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala and khasra No.8//22(8-0) is in exclusive cultivating possession of the complainant & his brother and to irrigate his crops, he has  installed a tube-well in khasra No.8//22 by spending about Rs.3.00 lacs and also purchased machinery of Rs.22,980/- and applied for 12.5 BHP electricity connection with OP No.2 vide application dated 27.12.2010 which was registered as application No.58544 and also deposited security of Rs.1250/- alongwith other charges of Rs.1540/- on 12.09.2011 and also executed an agreement with the Ops.  Thereafter, as per instructions of OP No.2, he also deposited Rs.30,000/- on 10.10.2013 and Rs.12,500/- on 28.05.2014. After completing all the formalities, the complainant requested the OP No.2 to release electricity connection but the OP No.2  despite various requests  failed TO release the connection. So, the complainant approached OP No.1, but of no result. Thereafter, complainant got served a legal notice dated 31.07.2014 upon the Ops qua deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice but they did not bother to reply the notice though as per Section 43(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Ops  were bound to release electricity connection within 30 days from the date of application. Thus the complainant has alleged that he has been harassed mentally, physically  as well as monetary and prayed for acceptance of the complaint  and sought relief as mentioned in prayer clause of the complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement  admitting that  the complainant & his brother Gurmail Singh alongwith other co-owners/sharers namely Singh Ram, Maya Ram and Prito Devi etc. are the owners of land measuring 8 kanal bearing khasra No.8//22 at village Ramgarh, District Ambala but the said co-sharers namely Singh Ram made a strong written objection on the release of tube-well electricity connection to the complainant in the said khasra number, so, the complainant was directed to submit no objections of all other co-sharers namely Singh Ram & Maya Ram etc. which he failed  to submit and thus electricity connection could not be released to him.  The Ops further admitted that complainant deposited the requisite charges with them after submitting the application for release of electricity connection for  tubewell of  12.5 BHP load.  As such, the Ops have submitted that the connection could not be released to the complainant due to his own fault as he failed to submit no objection of other co-sharers of Khasra No.8/22 and this fact has been concealed by the complainant  from this Hon’ble Forum. Thus, the Ops have prayed for  dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-11 and closed the evidence whereas  on the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Sh. Vikas Bansal, SDO as Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-14 and closed the evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant alongwith his brother Gurmail Singh is owner in possession of land about 8 acres with other co-sharers and for irrigating his land, he applied for tubewell connection with OP No.2 and deposited requisite charges and completed all the formalities for the connection.  But the Ops refused to release the connection on the ground that other co-sharers of the land has made written objection in releasing the tubewell connection and sought NOC from the objector/co-sharers Singh Ram etc. The counsel for complainant drew our attention towards Section 43 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 which is reproduced as under:-

“Duty to supply on request (1) [Save as otherwise provided in this Act] every distribution licensee, shall, 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:” 

43(3)If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default.

                        Further the counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards Instructions No.23 of Sales Manual of Ops wherein it is mentioned that-

“Grant of electric connection in the absence of consent from the landlord.  Clause 5-A,(iii) of the application and agreement form stipulates that if it has not been possible for a lawful occupier of the premises to obtain  consent of the landlord, he should agree to keep indemnified and harmless the supplier against all claims made and actions and proceedings taken by the landlord or any person claiming through or under him by reasons of the giving of the electric connection by the supplier. Accordingly an indemnity bond should be got executed on a stamp paper of the value of Rs.15/- from the prospective consumers in case they are unable to obtain the consent of their landlords.  However, stamping of indemnity bond need not be insisted upon from a domestic or commercial consumers.”

                        The counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant is ready to furnish the indemnity bond, if so required by the Ops as per their instructions no.23 of the Sales Manual. Besides it, counsel for the complainant also relied upon the case law titled as Amanpreet Singh Vs. Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in CCC 2014(2) Pg. 212 (P&H) wherein it has been held as under:-

1. Electricity Act, 2003, Ss42,43-Release of electric connection-Ss.42,43 of the Act cast duty on ‘distribution licensee’ to provide supply  of electricity to consumer within a period of one month after receipt of application  requiring supply of electricity –Provisions are mandatory in nature.
2. Electricity Act, 2003, Ss. 42 ,43-Release of electric connection- Inordinate delay-Compensation- Respondents No.1 to 3 failed to explain  inordinate delay in releasing electric connection in favour of petitioner-Held, respondents No.1 to 3 directed to compensate petitioner by paying an amount of Rs.50,000/- as costs with interest  @9% per annum from the date of receipt of test report till the date of actual payment-Petition allowed.

  5.                   On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops has admitted that the complainant has applied for tubewell connection but the same could not be released to him as the other co-sharers namely Singh Ram etc. raised objection for the said connection on the ground that the land whereupon connection is to be released is joint khasra number and if the connection is released, then they will suffer irreparable loss.  The counsel for the OP further argued that as per Nigam rules, without consent or getting NOC from other co-sharers, they cannot release the connection to the complainant. The counsel for the Ops relied upon instructions No.1.1.5 which reads as under:-

                        In case of tube well connections, where ownership of land is in the joint names, the tubewell connection may be released provided:-

1. The copy of jamabandi Girdwari indicates that the applicant is a joint owner.
2. The other owner (s) give an affidavit that they have no objection if the tubewell connection is released in the name of applicant.
3. The applicant indemnifies the UHBVN against any legal complication/disputes arising out of the joint ownership.
4. The Feeder incharge shall associate himself with the Patwari of concerned area at the time of preparing the estimate and a certificate shall be taken from  the Patwari that the applicant has shown correct Muraba/Killa number to the Feeder Manager to avoid any dispute at later stage.

                        The counsel for the Ops further argued that as per revised instructions, it is mandatory for the applicant to give an affidavit of other co-owners /co-sharers stating that they have no objection if the tubewell connection is released in the name of the applicant. But the complainant failed to submit affidavit of other co-owners of the land, hence, as per the revised instruction tubewell connection could not be released to him and as such, there is no deficiency on their part.                               

6.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is clear from the copy of jamabandi marked as Annexure C-1 that the complainant is co-owner in possession of the land alongwith Singh Ram etc. in khasra no.8//22 (8-0) where the tubewell in question has been installed and complainant is seeking release of electricity connection for which he has duly applied to the Ops and paid necessary charges but the Ops failed to release him connection due to the objections raised by the other co-sharers i.e. Singh Ram etc. From perusal of Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003, it reveals that licensee, shall, 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 otherwise he shall be liable to penalty as provided in this Act”.  Further the Instructions No.23 of Sales Manual vide Clause 5-A (iii) of the OP-Nigam says that if it has not been possible for a lawful occupier of the premises to obtain consent of the landlord he should agree to keep indemnified and harmless the supplier against all claims by executing an indemnity bond on a stamp paper of the value of Rs.15/-.”  In the present case, the complainant has made application to the Ops with necessary charges for release of electricity  connection being co-owner of the land and also completed all the formalities as required by the Ops and at this stage, it is not justified for  Ops  to refuse releasing of electricity connection to complainant for not submitting NOC from other co-sharers.  At the most, Ops can demand indemnity bond from the complainant as per requirement of instruction no.23 of their own Sales Manual. Further the plea taken by the Ops that as per their Revised Sales Manual, Instructions No.1.1.5 issued vide letter No.3787/CS/UH/BOD(156.30) dated 05.06.2013, the tube well connection cannot be released to the applicant if he is unable to submit affidavit/NOC from other co-sharers of the land, is not sustainable in the eyes of law since it is a settled law that executive instructions cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect meaning thereby that the revised instructions issued by Op’s on 05.06.2013 are not applicable to the present tubewell connection case of the applicant being applied with OP’s in the year of 2010.

                        In view of the facts discussed above,  we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within 30 days of the communication of this order:-

1. To release the tubewell connection to the complainant subject to furnishing of indemnity bond by complainant on a prescribed stamp paper to the Ops to the effect that in case of any loss/harm is caused to the Ops in releasing of said connection, then he will indemnify the same.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental harassment, physical pain as well as litigation expenses etc.

                       

                        The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the OP’s within the stipulated period otherwise the complainant shall be entitled to get the same enforced under due provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

 

ANNOUNCED:10.08.2015

 

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                           (A.K. SARDANA)

                       PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                        Sd/-

        (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                              MEMBER