State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs Mahinder Singh on 24 March, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2012
Date of Institution: 12.03.2012
Date of Decision: 24.03.2014
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its SDO, City
Sub Division, PSPCL, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through Bhupinder
Singh, J.E. City Sub Division, PSPCL, Kotkapura, District
Faridkot.
3. Senior Executive Engineer, Operation Division, PSPCL,
Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties
VERSUS
Mahinder Singh aged 32 years son of Chanan Singh, Care of
Bhagwan Valmiki Mandir Committee, Kotkapura, Tehsil and District
Faridkot.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order
dated 5.1.2012 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Faridkot.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellants : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 5.1.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to release the connection of the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/- to him on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. First Appeal No. 285 of 2012 Page 2 of 6
2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant had taken one shop on rent for which he applied for an electric connection and deposited the security amount of Rs.1,590/- with the opposite parties, vide receipt dated 1.2.2011. He visited the office of the opposite parties number of times but they put the matter off on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, he was told by them that the connection could not be released as one bill was pending in the name of Mandir Committee with regard to another electric connection installed in the same premises where the new connection was sought to be released. Opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification for the release of the said connection which amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. In the complaint filed before the District Forum, he sought directions to the opposite parties to release the new electric connection. Compensation of Rs.80,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- were also prayed.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed joint written reply taking preliminary objection that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. His test report was rejected by them as he had given wrong facts. When the site was visited, it was found that there was no electric fitting installed by him. Moreover, new connection was sought in the complex owned by Mandir Committee against whom an amount of Rs.7,978/- was pending because one connection previously existing in that premises was disconnected on account of non-payment of the bills. Thus, the connection was rightly declined by as per regulations of the opposite parties. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed. First Appeal No. 285 of 2012 Page 3 of 6
4. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. The District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, allowed the complaint in the aforesaid terms.
6. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties have come up in appeal on the ground that Regulation 167 of the Sales Regulations, 2005, concerning the release of new connection in a premises, prohibits the release of a new connection if any amount is outstanding against any other connection in the same premises. It was further submitted that Mandir Committee is one single premises, and therefore, the second connection in the same premises of the Mandir was not permissible. However, an extension of load is permissible, for which the Mandir Committee is competent to apply. It was further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of Supply Condition No.2.1.4 it is prescribed that the persons/consumers involved in theft of electricity or consumers against whom defaulting amount is pending can avail a new connection/extension only if they deposit at least 50% of outstanding amount and agree to abide by the decision of Dispute Settlement Committee. The acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
7. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record.
8. The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant applied for an electric connection and deposited security of Rs.1,590/- on 1.2.2011 with the opposite parties, vide receipt Ex.C-2. He has proved on record the consent (Ex.C-3) from Valmiki Mandir First Appeal No. 285 of 2012 Page 4 of 6 Committee, Kotkapura to install the same in his name. However, the release of connection was declined by the opposite parties by referring to service connection order No.57 dated 1.2.2011 (Ex.R-3) in which it is mentioned that this connection is sought in the shop owned by Valmiki Mandir and in the same premises an electric meter was removed on account of non-payment of the dues. In these circumstances, the connection was not released to him. It has been contended by the opposite parties that new connection cannot be released in the premises where a defaulting amount was pending. Regulation 167 of the Sales Regulations, 2005, provides as under:-
"167. RUNNING OF MORE THAN ONE CONNECTION IN THE SAME PREMISES: Some consumers take more than one connections in the same premises, in the same or different names resulting into loss by way of application of wrong schedule of tariffs. Similarly, there are consumers who manage to get connection in the defaulting premises tactfully in the name of a new relative or a partner of the firm so as to get rid of the outstanding amount against them/such consumer. Release of a new connection or more than one connection in the same premises should be regulated as under:-
167.1- Premises is the unit of building complex, which has separate entry and is appropriately partitioned from the neighbouring premises in a manner that electric connection running in the said premises can not be used in the neighbouring premises and vice versa.
167.2- Whenever an existing consumer applies for a new connection in the same premises (Independent construction/unit First Appeal No. 285 of 2012 Page 5 of 6 having separate identity) in his name, it should not be allowed and the consumer should be asked to apply for extension in existing load. Whenever a new connection is applied by the same consumer in a new premises by carving out from the existing one or by purchasing adjoining land/premises, it should be treated as extension in load.
167.2.1- Where any person whether or not a member of the family, partner, director etc. of an existing consumer applied for a new connection in the same premises or in a contiguous premises by carving out from existing one or by purchasing an adjoining land/premises in his own individual name or in the name of a new firm/company, this should be allowed only if (a) there is a physical separation and (b) also where the premises in question are legally transferred, sold or leased to a new unit and appropriate entry exists in the municipal record regarding such transfer. This implies that there should be a registered deed for lease or for sale and informal agreement for family partition/lease etc. would not be acceptable"
9. It has been deposed by Bhupinder Singh, JE in his affidavit (Ex.R-2) that an amount of Rs.7,978/- was pending against the Mandir Committee in respect of another electric connection No.NP59/1301 that was lying disconnected. Ex.R-3 is a service connection order issued by the opposite parties for releasing new connection to the complainant but the concerned JE has given some remarks for non- release of connection. Therefore, we hold that the opposite parties were within their rights to decline the release of new connection. First Appeal No. 285 of 2012 Page 6 of 6
10. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties is accepted and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. The appellants/opposite parties deposited an amount of Rs.2,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, alongwith interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to appellant No.3, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft, after expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
12. The arguments in the case were heard on 20.3.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KUMAR) MEMBER March 24, 2014 VINAY