National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Punjab State Electricity Board And Ors. vs Tek Bahadur Singh on 6 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: I(2004)CPJ125(NC)
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. These three Revision Petitions arise from the orders dated 13.1.2003, 25.11.2002 and 11.3.2003 of the Punjab State Commission in Appeal Nos. 1655/ 2002, 507/2001 and 226/2003 respectively. In all the three cases, the State Commission held that the matter in appeals is squarely covered by its decision in Appeal No. 540/2002 decided on 20.5.2002 and dismissed the appeals. As the facts are similar with some minor variations, we propose to dispose of these Revision Petitions by a common order after examining the order of the State Commission in Appeal No. 540/ 2002.
2. In all these cases the Original Complainants applied for electric connection to the motors to be installed on the tube-wells in their agricultural fields. However the electric connections were not released by PSEB in spite of repeated requests. The explanation given by PSEB is that the connections were not given because --
(a) certain requirements of the demand notice have not been complied with, and
(b) their turn has not come according to the separate seniority list maintained by PSEB.
3. In Revision Petition No. 1398/2003 the complainant applied for an electric connection for his tube-well as early as on 30.6.1986 by paying the registration fee. A demand notice was issued by PSEB on 9.7.1998 asking him to pay Rs. 15,000/- which the compalainant paid on 8.10,1998. The complainant avers that he installed the tube-well and electric motor in October, 1998 itself spending Rs. 30,000/- which investment is lying idle since he cannnot use the tube-well or the electric motor. At the relevant time, PSEB regulations for the supply of energy to consumers included Regulations 26, under which an electric connection is required to be given within 2 months. It is argued by PSEB that this instruction was deleted on 11.7.2001. PSEB wants us to read this time limit is subject to availability of material like wires, etc. with the stores of PSEB. The District Forum has clearly brought, out that the complainant approached the Forum on 6.11.2001 and the concerned officer of PSEB has put in a demand to the store section for releasing the material only on 17.1.2002 i.e. after the complaint was filed. So much for the concern of PSEB towards its cdnsuemrs.
4. The specific requirements allegedly not complied with by the complainant are that he did not produce the copy of the bill for purchase of electric motor and did not furnish information regarding its make and model. These are minor requirements which could have easily got complied with, especially after the orders of the State Commission which confirmed the order of the District Forum in Appeal No. 540/2002. The District Forum's order directed PSEB "to send in writting to the complainants within one month's time as to what exactly are the specific requirements of the demand notice that have not been complied with, the complainants would thereafter comply with these requirements within 2 months; PSEB shall release the electric connection to the complainants". Raising this appears to be more in the nature of defending themselves for not giving the connection. Incidentally the connection has not been given till today.
On the matter of existence of a separate seniority list, the State Commission held that the question of separate seniority list could arise before the issuance of demand notice. The question of seniority should be considered before issuing a demand notice. After the issuance of demand notice, any seniority list maintained by PSEB was not of any relevance.
5. In Revision Petition No. 2117/2003, the application for electric connection to his tube-well was made on 24.6.1986. Demand notice was issued on 30.3.2001 and the requisite amount of Rs. 9,010/- was paid on 24.4.2001. However, till today there is no connection. As observed by the State Commission, the issue of seniority and delaying the connection for years together should not arise once the demand notice is issued in this case getting the electric connection proved to be illusive even after 17 years. Obviously the complainant could not have used the electric motors purchased years ago.
6. In Revision Petition No. 1880/2003, the complainant applied for a tube-well connection on priority basis under self financing scheme on 1.1.1991. The scheme was to apply for those who put in application before 31.3.1991. He further deposited an amount of Rs. 1,000/- on 9.9.1992. Thereafter, PSEB unilaterally modified the scheme and restricted it to only those who had applied upto 30.11.1990. In this case, the demand notice has not been issued on the grounds that the concerned transformer is overloaded. This attitude is nothing but playing havoc with the poor consumers and need to be condemned.
7. While hearing Revision Petition No. 1750 of 2002 with 70 other similar matters, this Commission has decided on 4.8.2003 to seek the explanation from the Chief Engineer (Commercial) of PSEB. He was unable to explain the current position but gave an assurance and undertaking on behalf of PSEB to give electricity conections to all the respondents/complainants while maintaining seniority list before us by 31.3.2004. Both the parties represented by their Counsels were agreeable to this undertaking given on behalf of PSEB.
8. But since the amounts taken from these respondents are kept for unduly long time, it is considered as undue enrichment of PSEB.
9. Keeping in view of our earlier decision in similar cases, we pass the similar order :
"Petitioner is directed to grant interest @ 12% on the deposited amount from the date of deposit upto the date of the energization of the connection. Final figures of credit/debit will be worked Out by the petitioner at the time of energization of the connection and communicated to the complainant(s) within four weeks of energization giving full details. Respondents/complainants shall also be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-in each case for harassment; loss to the complainant and to cover some interest payment on the premature investment made by them in Pump House(s), purchase of equipments etc. Respondents/Complainant(s) would also be entitled to cost which we fix at Rs. 2,000/- in each case. These two payments be made within six weeks of this order. If there are any discrepancies still left which were raised in the context of Demand Notice, petitioner should point that out within four weeks and help the complainant to remove that at the earliest.
All the Revision Petitions are allowed in above terms and orders of District Forum as affirmed by State Commission, are set aside.
It is also made clear that in case, the Resondents/ Complainants do not get the electric connection within the time limit indicated by the Chief Engineer Commercial of the petitioner, petitioner shall then have to pay very heavy cost for such a failure to perform, in each case.
Revision petition allowed accordingly.