The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had applied for electric connection and had deposited an amount of Rs.1485/- as demanded by the opposite party vide receipt no.17.02.2007. It is averred that the period of 4 years have been passed but neither the connection is given nor the meter is installed. It is averred that the complainant continuously requested the opposite party and had made written request dated 6.4.2010 but the opposite party sent an illegal bill dated 9.8.2010 amounting to Rs.7447/-. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal as neither the connection was given to the complainant nor the meter is installed then how the said bill has been sent. It is averred that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 26.3.2011 but the same was not replied. It is averred that the name of the complainant’s father is Sh. Datar Singh but in the alleged bill the name of the father of complainant is Jaibir. As such it is averred that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to withdraw the illegal bill, not to demand any amount from the complainant and to give the electricity connection by installing the meter and to supply electricity energy and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of unnecessary harassment and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that it is denied that no connection has been given or meter is installed. Infact connection was installed on 30.06.2007 vide SCO No.29/47 dated 17.12.2007. It is averred that the connection was installed on 30.06.2007 vide SCO No.29/47 dated 17.12.2007 to the complainant and he has been consuming the electricity. The bill dated 9.8.2010 has been legally issued to the complainant for the electricity consumed by him and he is legally bound to pay the bill amount. It is averred that due to clerical/computer mistake the father’s name of the complainant has been wrongly mentioned in the bill. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. It is not disputed that the complainant has applied for electricity connection in the year 2007 as is proved from the receipt Ex.C3 dated 17.02.2007. It is also not disputed that as per application Ex.C4 dated 06.04.2010 complainant had demanded the reply for unnecessary delay in non supply of electricity connection. It is also on record that the opposite party had sent a bill Ex.C5 amounting to Rs.7447/- in the name of Jai Dev s/o Sh.Jai Bir Singh.
7. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that he had applued for the electricity connection in the year 2007, but the opposite party without giving the electricity connection has issued the bill Ex.C5 which is illegal and is not possible. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the connection was installed on 30.06.2007 vide SCO no.29/47 dated 17.12.2007 to the complainant and he has been consuming the electricity and the bill dated 9.8.2010 has been legally issued to the complainant for the electricity consumed by him. To prove its contention opposite party has placed on record copy of letter Ex.R2 issued to the AFM regarding personal checking of site/meter of A/c No.SP-560 in the name of Jai Dev.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that a thorough perusal of letter Ex.R2 reveals that as per report of AFM it is mentioned that: “At the time of site verification, there was no meter at site”. It is also observed that opposite party has not placed on record copy of SCO No.29/47 dated 17.12.2007 to prove that connection was issued to the complainant. Moreover the date of SCO is 17.12.2007 whereas as per opposite party connection was installed on 30.06.2007 which is not possible because the SCO should be issued before the installation of connection. Hence it is not proved on file that the connection was issued to the complainant and without giving the connection and installation of meter the issue of bill to the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. The security for connection was deposited on 17.02.2007 including the meter cost so the opposite party is liable to issue the connection and to install the meter at the site of the complainant. We have also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2003(2)CPC 111 titled Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Tejinder Pal Singh and another, whereby Hon’ble Punjab State Commission has held that: “Complainant/appellant suffered loss for a long period of 6 years for non release of electric connection for his tubewell-Compensation of Rs.10000/- being inadequate the same is raised to Rs.50000/-. Appeal filed by OP department dismissed”. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the complainant is entitle for the connection as applied by him.
9. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions it is directed that the opposite party shall withdraw the bill Ex.C5 dated 09.08.2010 and shall release the electric connection to the complainant against his application No.35596/DS dated 17.02.2007 and install a meter at the premises of complainant maximum within a period of one month from the date of decision. Opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
20.01.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
