State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pseb vs Sukhwinder Singh on 16 April, 2014
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.540 of 2009
Date of institution : 17.04.2009
Date of Decision : 16.04.2014
Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Deputy Chief Engineer cum
Superintending Engineer, Sangrur Circle, Sohian Road, Sangrur- 148001.
...Appellant/OP
Versus
Sukhwinder Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh, R/o V. Ram Nagar Chhana, Tehsil
Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.
...Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against the order
dated 10.03.2009 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Argued by:-
For the appellant : None
For respondent : Ex-parte
ORDER
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ Opposite party (hereinafter referred as 'OP') under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'Act') against the order dated 10.03.2009 in consumer complaint no.590 of 2008 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter called as 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') was accepted.First Appeal No. 540 of 2009 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Sukhwinder Singh filed the complaint under the Act against the OP on the averments that he was the subscriber of agriculture electric connection bearing account no.RN2679 AP with sanctioned load of 12.5 BHP, which was initially in the name of Ajaib Singh from whom it was got transferred to complainant's name. Thereafter, complainant deposited Rs.83020/- and Rs.5000/- as the cost of transformer of 25 KVA and OP installed transformer. But the grievance of the complainant was that OP changed the transformer and released three more connection from that transformer, the officials of the OP told the complainant that they will change the transformer of 63 KV and will install transformer of 16 KVA only. It was pleaded that, thereafter, OP removed the transformer from where the connection was released to the complainant and other consumers. The grievance of the complainant is that after charging the amount of 25 KVA transformer, OP was bound to install the same only for the use of complainant, but nothing happened, which shows the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant filed the complaint seeking directions to the OP to install 25 KVA transformer only for the complainant instead of 16 KVA to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and agony and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice the OP filed written reply by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties because Secretary, PSEB was the necessary party, who, had delegated his power to S.E.PSEB not the Deputy Engineer of PSEB. On merits, it was admitted that complainant had obtained one electric connection, which was got transferred from Ajaib Singh in the name of the complainant. It was submitted that originally the capacity of the connection was 5 BHP and thereafter, it was got enhanced from 10 BHP to 12.5 BHP, the transformer of 25 KVA and 63 KVA were not individual transformers. First Appeal No. 540 of 2009 3 There were installed by PSEB for use of other consumers. It was admitted that transformer were installed at the cost of the consumers and these were maintained by the PSEB. It was submitted that the PSEB issued guideline for conversion of three phase AP feeders to HVDS on existing AP tubewell consumers in rural areas. As per circular, the transformers shall be distributed as per load. It was submitted that the PSEB had taken only Rs.25205/- of 25 KVA from the complainant which were for getting installed transformers for common use of other consumers as per the capacity of the transformer. The value of 16 KVA transformer is now Rs.57931/-. All other allegations were also denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Parties were allowed by the District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations complainant filed documents Ex.C-1 receipts, Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3 is the affidavit. On the other hand, OP filed documents Ex.R-1 instruction no.50, Ex.R-2 cost of different items, Ex.R-3 affidavit of Er.Harcharan Singh, S.D.O., PSEB.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 10.03.2009 and directed the OP to install 25 KVA transformer for the use of complainant alone and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant/OP has come up in the appeal on the ground that the findings of the learned District Forum is totally mis-interpretation of the circular/guidelines as annexure Ex.R-1 of the OP the rating of distribution of transformers was the policy matter of the PSEB and to be implemented uniformly in the whole Punjab. The respondent was having a 12.5 BHP motor and for the same 16 KVA transformer was prescribed under the guidelines. This fact has been totally First Appeal No. 540 of 2009 4 ignored by the learned District Forum while allowing the complaint of the respondent. The OP had taken a categorical stand in the affidavit filed by Sh. Harcharan Singh, S.D.O. that PSEB had taken only Rs.25,205/- for the 25 KVA comman transformer and the rest of amount from Rs.83020/- was of raw material used in the installation of transformer and the cost 16 KVA is now Rs.57931/- and the same can be installed as an individual transformer. The District Forum while allowing the complaint of the respondent has proceeded on totally wrong presumptions that the respondent had paid Rs.83020/- for installation of an individual transformer of 25 KVA whereas, the same payment including Rs.25,205/- for costs of transformer was for the comman use of other consumers also and not an individual installation. It was prayed that the appeal may be accepted and order passed by the District Forum be set-aside.
8. Respondent was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.08.2009 of this Commission.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and perused the record of the learned District Forum. None is present on behalf of the appellant at the time of arguments.
10. It is an admitted fact that the agricultural electric connection bearing account no.RN 2679 AP was installed in the name of Ajaib Singh from whom it was got transferred in the name of Sukhwinder Singh having sanctioned load of 12.5 BHP. It is also admitted fact that the complainant deposited Rs.83020/- vide receipt no.341/65297 and Rs.5000/- vide receipt no.186/65297 Ex.C-1. The OP has placed on record an affidavit of Er. Harcharan Singh, S.D.O., PSEB Ex.R-3 in which it was mentioned that the transformer of 25 KVA and 63 KVA was not an individual transformer, these transformers were installed by the OP in the whole Punjab state for the use of consumers means the other AP consumers whom the connection were given from these transformers. However, these First Appeal No. 540 of 2009 5 transformers were installed by the Board at the cost of the consumers maintained by the Board. This was the policy matter and implemented in the whole Punjab State. Earlier all the 25 KVA and 63 KVA transformer was made for the Aluminum wire and later on copper wire __ 25 KVA transformer which was used for other consumers also as per the capacity of the transformer. The value of 16 KVA transformer is now Rs.57931.57 paise which will be installed as individual transformer. The OP has placed on record Ex.R-2 in which serial no.15 shows that 16 KVA three phase transformer's supply rate is 57931.57 paise.
11. We have also perused Ex.R-1 guidelines for conversion of three phases AP feeders to HVDS (zero LT system) on existing AP tubewell consumers in rural areas, the relevant part is reproduced as under:-
"4. Existing system will be converted into HVDS (zero LT system) by erecting 11 KV line on the existing LT poles as per following guidelines using shortest HT route:-
i) LT jumpers of the existing Distribution Transformers are to be replaced by HT jumpering to the first existing common pole converted for HT configuration. Common pole LT jumpering is to be removed and deading is to be done as per drawing showsn in Annexure-1.
ii) Next LT poles on the existing LT line will be fitted with V-shape cross arm at a distance of 600 mm from the top of the pole as shown in Annexure-3.
iii) Pin insulators and top hampers will be fitted on the V-cross arm and pole.
iv) Top conductor in the vertical LT formation will be binded to the left hand Pin insulator.
Second conductor will be put on the top hamper insulator and third conductor in the vertical formation will be erected on right hand insulator of the cross arm (Annexure-2)
v) Bottom conductor of the line will be dismantled.
11. The rating of Distribution transformers for various capacity tubewell connections shall be as under (Latest Commercial issued time to time in this regard are to followed):-
Sr. No. Load Capacity of Distribution Transformers
1. 3 BHP/5 BHP 6.3 KVA
2. 7.5 BHP/ 10 BHP 10 KVA
3. 12.5 BHP/ 15 BHP 16 KVA
4. 17.5 BHP 16KVA
5. 20 BHP/ 25 BHP 25 KVA
12. The allegations made in the complaint is that after charging the amount of 25 KVA the OPs were bound to install transformer of 25 KVA for giving connection individual connection to the complainant but the First Appeal No. 540 of 2009 6 plea of the complainant is not correct because as per the policy/guidelines of the Board the complainant falls under Serial no.3 category and is entitled for 16 KVA transformer. The plea of the OP is that the said amount of Rs.83020/- was got deposited with the OP by the complainant. In view of the shifting of the transformer including the cost of raw materials vide memo no.4223 dated 22.03.2004 Taqmina no.3562. The District Forum has not considered these facts. So the order of the learned District Forum cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
13. Sequel to the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the appellant is partly accepted and the order passed by the learned District Forum is modified to the extent that OPs are directed to adjust the cost of 16 KVA transformer instead of 25 KVA and the excess amount if any, be refunded to the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 09.04.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
16. The appellant/OP has deposited an amount of Rs.2500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs.2500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant/OP by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member April 16, 2014 Rs