Haryana

Ambala

CC/303/2014

JASDEV 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. :  303 of 2014

            Date of Institution    :   05.11.2014

             Date of Decision      :   10.08.2015

Jasdev Singh son of Sh. Dharam Pal R/o VPO Landa, Tehsil and District Ambala

                                                                                                                                   ……Complainant.

Versus

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

2.         The Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division Kesri, UHBVNL, 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. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. for Ops.

ORDER.

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that he is co-owner in possession alongwith other co-sharers of the agricultural land measuring 205 kanals 8 marlas situated in village Landa as per jamabandi for the year 2010-2011  and  is in exclusive cultivating possession of khasra No.15//16(8-0) and to irrigate his crops, he got installed a tube-well in khasra No.15//16 by spending about Rs.3.00 lacs. Thereafter, he  applied for 15 BHP electricity connection with OP No.2 vide application No.18984/AP dated 13.09.2002 and also deposited security of Rs.570/- alongwith other charges and executed an agreement with the Ops. Thereafter, the Ops on their own changed the application number & date of application as 19195/AP dated 19.03.2003 and  demanded  a sum of Rs.20,000/- which the complainant deposited on 24.03.2009.  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 the OP No.1, but of no result.  The complainant further alleged that in August 2014, the officials of OP No.2 asked the complainant that his file has been misplaced in the office due to flood in the year 2010 and asked to submit  duplicate file so that the connection can be released, as such, the duplicate file was submitted with OP No.2 on 05.09.2014 and the complainant received a letter No.716/CC on 15.09.2014 from OP No.2 whereby the complainant has been directed to supply NOC from  other co-sharers Sahab Singh & Sukhdev Singh etc. within seven days failing which his  application shall be cancelled whereupon the complainant asked the OP that Sahab Singh S/o Datta Ram who is co-sharer in the suit land and applied for tubewell connection on 17.02.2010 in khasra No.14//18 i.e. much later than the complainant has been released electricity  connection after intervention of the Forum and thus the act of the OP is discriminatory one towards the complainant. In the end, 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 per prayer clause of the complaint.  

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting that  from the revenue record, it cannot be said that complainant is in the exclusive possession of khasra number 15//16 but admitted that  the complainant applied for an electricity connection vide application  No.19195/AP dated 19.03.2003. Ops denied that vide reference No.424 dated 04.03.2003, the Ops conveyed the complainant that electricity connection has been allowed to him rather a demand notice No.1207/CC dated 05.08.2004 was sent to the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- as expenses for installation of the tubewell connection but the complainant failed  to deposit the same despite issuance of reminder in this regard. However, an application in the month of March 2009 received whereby the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 24.03.2009  but failed to submit NOC from Co-sharers despite issuance of letters  by Ops and connection to Sahab Singh was released in compliance of the order dated 30.06.2014 passed by this Forum  in Complaint Case No.38 of 2014.  Ops further submitted that Section 43(3) does not apply to the Agricultural electricity  connection and period of 30 days as provided in this section starts from the day on which the formalities are completed by the consumer/applicant. As such, there is no lapse, negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his case, the counsel for complainant 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. Virender Kumar, SDO as Annexure RX  and affidavit of Sh. Shekhar Mohan SDO as Annexure RY alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is owner in possession of land 205 Kanals 8 Marlas with other co-sharers and is in exclusive possession of khasra No.15//16(8-0)  and for irrigating his land he applied for a tubewell connection with OP No.2 and deposited requisite charges and completed all the formalities for the connection. The counsel for complainant further argued that in August 2014, the officials of OP No.2 asked the complainant that his file has been misplaced in the office due to flood in the year 2010 and asked to submit duplicate file so that the connection can be released, as such, the duplicate file was submitted with OP No.2 on 05.09.2014. 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 Sahab Singh 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. The 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 by our Hon’ble High Court:-

1. Electricity Act, 2003, Ss42,43-Release of electric connection-Ss.42,43 of the Act casts 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- Respondent 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 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 Sahab Singh  & Sukhdev Singh 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 their 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 argued that as per revised instructions, it is mandatory for the applicant to give an affidavit of other owner /co-sharers alleging 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 and as such, as per the revised instruction, tubewell connection was not released to the complainant, hence there is no deficiency on their part.                            

7.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is clear from the copy of jamabandi marked as Annexures C-8 to C-11, that the complainant is co-owner in possession of the land alongwith other co-sharers Sahab Singh, Sukhdev Singh & Pardeep Singh etc. in khasra no.15//16 (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. Sahab Singh, Sukhdev Singh & Pardeep Singh 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 an 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 as per Section 43 of the Electricity Act,2003 Ops are bound to release supply to the complainant  and 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  complainant if he is unable to submit affidavit/NOC from other co-sharers of the land, is not tenable 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 Ops on 05.06.2013  are not applicable to the present Tube-well Connection Case of the applicant being applied with Ops in the year 2002/2009.

                        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 tube-well 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 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