State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pseb vs Gajjan Singh on 13 May, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.508 of 2006
Date of institution: 31.03.2006
Date of decision : 13.05.2011
Punjab State Electricity Board through Secretary, The Mall, Patialal through SDO
Patti II Sub Division Patti, District Amritsar.
.....Appellants
Versus
Gajjan Singh son of S.Bishan Singh, VPO Sabrahn, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 22.12.2005
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mr.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Ms.Amandeep Sibia, Advocate
For the respondent : None
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
The respondent had applied to the appellants for 5 BHP electric connection under AP category for installation of tubewell in his fields. The application was submitted in the year 1990. He had also deposited Rs.120/- as security amount against receipt dated 13.2.1990. The demand notice was issued by the appellants to the respondent in April/May, 2001. The respondent had deposited the demanded amount of Rs.15,240/- against the receipt dated 21.5.2001. The test report was also submitted. However, the tubewell electric connection was not released to the respondent.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondent had gone to the office of the appellants. Jagtar Singh lineman met the respondent and he demanded the illegal gratification for installing the tubewell electric connection. The respondent First Appeal No.508 of 2006 2 refused to do so. Rather he reported the matter to the Vigilance Bureau and Jagtar Singh was caught red handed while accepting the bribe money.
3. It was further pleaded that the respondent again visited the office of the appellants to enquire about the probable date for installation of the tubewell electric connection but the appellants refused to release the tubewell electric connection to the respondent. Hence, the complaint for the installation of the tubewell electric connection. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
4. The appellants filed the written reply. It was admitted that the respondent had applied for tubewell electric connection under the AP category in the year 1990 and he had deposited the prescribed fee with the appellants. It was also not denied that the demand notice was issued by the appellants to the respondent in May, 2001 and in compliance thereof, the respondent had deposited the demanded amount of Rs.15,240/- along with the test report.
5. It was, however, denied if Jagtar Singh lineman had demanded illegal gratification from the respondent but it was admitted that the respondent had got registered a case with the Vigilance Bureau. It was pleaded that it was a false case.
6. It was further pleaded that on 12.12.2004, one Balbir Singh, Junior Engineer of the appellants had visited the premises of the respondent and it was found by him that the respondent was running one submersible motor of 7.5 BHP illegally after affixing direct Kundi. Since the respondent was found committing theft of electric energy, his test report had failed and the penalty of Rs.7500/- was imposed on the respondent. The respondent has failed to deposit the amount of Rs.7500/- even after the notice dated 15.12.2004 was sent to him. The respondent has also failed to submit fresh test report. It was, therefore, prayed that the complaint filed by the respondent be dismissed.
7. Gajjan Singh respondent filed his affidavit Ex.C1. He also filed his supplementary affidavit Ex.C2. He also proved documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C7. On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh, SDO as Ex.R1 First Appeal No.508 of 2006 3 and the affidavit of Balbir Singh, JE as Ex.R2. The appellants also proved reports Ex.R3 and Ex.R4.
8. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 12.12.2005 with costs of Rs.2000/- and directed the appellants to release the tubewell electric connection to the respondent forthwith.
9. Hence, this appeal.
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that since the respondent was found committing theft of electric energy and since the test report had failed, therefore, the tubewell electric connection could not be released to the respondent. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2005 be set aside.
11. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
12. Admittedly, the respondent had applied for tubewell electric connection in the year 1990 under AP category. He had completed the formalities. It is also not denied that the appellant had issued the demand notice in the year 2001 and the respondent had deposited the amount of Rs.15,240/-. The test report was also submitted.
13. The version of the respondent was that Jagtar Singh lineman of the appellants was demanding illegal gratification. He had reported the matter to the Vigilance Bureau. A raid was conducted and Jagtar Singh was caught red handed while accepting the bribe money. Copy of the FIR dated 4.1.2005 has been proved as Ex.C5.
14. So far as the version of the appellants is concerned, they have reported that the checking was made on 12.12.2004 and the respondent was found committing the theft of electric energy. The appellants had not only raised the demand of Rs.7500/- but they had also failed the test report (A + A No.10777A dated 31.2.1990). The checking report has been proved as Ex.R3. The affidavit of Balbir Singh, JE who had inspected the premises of the respondent has been proved as Ex.R2.
First Appeal No.508 of 2006 4
15. The perusal of the checking report dated 12.12.2004 appears to be a forged document as the number of A+A is shown as 10777A and its date is shown as 31.2.1990. In the month of February, there is never the date as 31 and the last date of the February month ends on 28 while in the leap year it becomes 29. Here the word is mentioned as 31st February which is totally wrong. It appears that while forging this document or antedating the same, the wrong date was mentioned.
16. Moreover, the appellants allege that they had sent the letter to the respondent on 15.12.2004 (Ex.R4). It is not proved by the appellants as to how this letter was sent to the respondent. No postal receipt has been proved. This shows, therefore, that this letter was never sent by the appellants to the respondent.
17. Moreover, if it had been so, there was no need for the respondent to approach the Vigilance Bureau nor there was any need for Jagtar Singh lineman for accepting the bribe money on 5.1.2005 if the test report of the respondent was already rejected by the appellants. In the contents of the FIR, it is specifically mentioned that on 4.1.2005, Jagtar Singh lineman had demanded a sum of Rs.7000/- as bribe but the settlement had taken place at Rs.4000/- for releasing the tubewell electric connection. The contents of the FIR is, therefore, clearly falsified the version of the appellants.
18. In view of the discussions held above, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
19. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.1000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 31.3.2006. This amount of Rs.1000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
20. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent immediately.
First Appeal No.508 of 2006 5
21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 4.5.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
22. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
MEMBER
May 13, 2011.
Paritosh