State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs Gobind Singh on 7 June, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1910 OF 2011
Date of Institution: 28.12.2011
Date of Decision: 07.06.2013
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Sr.Executive
Engineer, Operation Division, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda.
.....Appellant/Opposite Party No.2
VERSUS
Gobind Singh, son of Sukhdev Singh, Village & PO: Lehra
Mohabbat, Patti Dulchi, in front of Thermal Power Gate District
Bathinda.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order
dated 17.10.2011 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:
For the appellant : Sh.A.K.Sharma, Advocate
For respondent : None
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party, against the order dated 17.10.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint of the respondent/complainant was allowed and the opposite party was directed that if the electric connection released to Sukhpal Singh or any other applicant within the period of two years from the date of release of connection in question to the complainant, 50% of the amount deposited by him for release of said connection, be paid to him before release of connection to any other applicant. First Appeal No. 1910 of 2011 Page 2 of 6
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the complainant was having a tubewell connection No.B61SP930115Y for his fish farm, which was released under SP category. He deposited an amount of Rs.53,300/- vide receipt No.42 on 25.11.2010 and Rs.7,600/- vide receipt No.207 dated 18.2.2010 with opposite party No.2 for getting this connection, which was released in 2011. As per the policy of the opposite parties, the service line of the complainant belonged to him for two years and during that period nobody could get the connection from his personal line and if anybody wanted to get the new connection from said line, then he was to pay his share of the deposited amount. It was pleaded in the complaint that entire material for getting the connection from 11 KV line, distribution transformer and service cable etc. were arranged by the complainant. The opposite parties got huge amount from Sukhpal Singh of village Lehra Mohabbat and were trying to give the connection from the personal line of the complainant forcibly, illegally and against the rules without paying any amount or share to him. He suffered mental tension due to the activities of the opposite parties, who were trying to give connection and undue benefit to Sukhpal Singh with ulterior motive. The complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay 50% of the share of Rs.60,900/- to him if they wanted to give connection to Sukhpal Singh. Compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for undue harassment and mental sufferings and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the compliant were also demanded.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed written reply pleading that the connection of the complainant was not given under OYT First Appeal No. 1910 of 2011 Page 3 of 6 scheme but was for "fish farm" which was released under SP category as per rules. The amounts paid by the complainant were, in fact, service connection charges and not the amounts under OYT scheme as alleged by him. The opposite parties were, thus, fully empowered to give the electricity connection from the service line to any other applicant. It was denied that they were trying to give connection to Sukhpal Singh of Lehra Mohabbat. In fact no such application was pending for release of the connection to said Sukhpal Singh. They were installing transformer for upgradation of the line and for proper voltage regulation and the complainant has no right to create hindrance. It was specifically denied if the service line for the complainant was erected under special scheme or the same was the personal property of the complainant. He is trying to invoke the regulations issued under "OYT scheme" for the release of connection under "normal scheme". No amount has been received from Sukhpal Singh nor any connection is being released to him. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. Learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, allowed the complaint and issued aforesaid directions.
6. Aggrieved by this order, opposite party No.1 has come up in appeal on the ground that learned District Forum has wrongly interpreted the provisions of the commercial circular No.44/2007 wherein it has been provided that two or more applicants can jointly First Appeal No. 1910 of 2011 Page 4 of 6 share the cost of the common line. In fact this circular was not at all applicable in the present case.
7. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record.
8. As per the averments made by the complainant himself, he has availed the connection bearing account No. B61SP930115Y for his "fish farm" under SP category after depositing Rs.53,300/- on 25.11.2010 and Rs.7,600/- on 18.2.2010. He has contended that since the connection was released under a special scheme for which he had paid the full cost of the service line and the transformer, therefore, this service line was his personal property and that as per the provisions of the circular No.44/2007, issued under OYT scheme, he was entitled to 50% of the total amount deposited by him, if any connection was released to any other person within two years from the date of release of connection. On the other hand, the stand of the opposite parties is that the connection was released under normal scheme and not under the OYT scheme. Ex.C-2 is the receipt dated 18.2.2010 for Rs.7,600/- and Ex.C-3 is the receipt dated 25.11.2010 for Rs.53,300/-. Scrutiny of these receipts shows that these amounts have not been deposited by the complainant under OYT scheme. Rather Rs.7,600/- had been deposited for security purpose and Rs.53,300/- as service connection charges. The opposite parties have placed on record the application of the complainant for release of connection as Ex.R-3; scrutiny of which shows that the tubewell connection was sanctioned to the complainant for fish farm on the recommendation of the Chief Executive Officer of the Fisheries Department of the Punjab First Appeal No. 1910 of 2011 Page 5 of 6 Government. The demand notice issued to him was proved as Ex.R-4 in which the details of Rs.53,300/-, demanded from the complainant, has been mentioned. Out of the total demanded amount of Rs.53,300/-, an amount of Rs.22,500/- has been mentioned as SCC i.e. Service Connection Charges and remaining amount of Rs.30,800/- was charged on account of length of 140 meters of the service line @ Rs.220/- per meter. This demand notice also does not state that same was issued under the OYT scheme or any other special scheme. A copy of the circular No.44/2007 has been placed on record which relates to tubewell connection under OYT scheme vide which the applicant is required to deposit Rs.25,000/- in lumpsum as registration fee alongwith his application which is adjustable against the service connection charges @ Rs.5,000/- per BHP and the entire material required for the release of the tubewell connection i.e. for erection of 11 KV line, distribution transformer and other allied equipments is to be provided by PSEB. In the present case, no such registration fee had been deposited by the complainant. The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant was having "fish farm small power connection" under industrial category as per rule 13.3.7 of Punjab State Electricity Supply Regulation, 2007, which is reproduced as under:-
"13.3.7.3 The service connection charges will be payable as applicable to industrial consumers subject to minimum of Rs.3,000/- per BHP (or as applicable to General category tubewells) up to a service length of 300 mtrs. Additional charges @ Rs.125/- p mtr. as applicable shall be recoverable for service line beyond this Limit of 300 mtrs."First Appeal No. 1910 of 2011 Page 6 of 6
9. Additional charges were enhanced to Rs.220/- per meter at the time of issue of demand notice. It has been further clarified by the opposite parties that the amount of Rs.53,300/- demanded from the complainant, through the demand notice, was strictly as per the Regulation 13.3.7.3.
10. In view of the above discussion and findings, we are of the firm view that the connection was given to the complainant under small power scheme for fish farming and not for agriculture pumping under OYT scheme. Hence the provisions of the circular No.44/2007 were not at all applicable to him. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint of the respondent/complainant is dismissed.
11. The arguments in the case were heard on 24.5.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
12. 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 June 07, 2013 VINAY