State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Shimla Garg vs Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. & Ors. on 16 May, 2023
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.589 of 2022
Date of Institution : 14.07.2022
Date of Reserve : 08.05.2023
Date of Decision : 16.05.2023
Smt. Shimla Garg, aged about 80 years (Senior Citizen) wife of
Sh.Sham Lal Garg, residents of House No.40, Central Town,
Phullanwal-Threeke Road, Village Dad, P.O. Lalton Kalan, P.S.
Sadar, Ludhiana, Mobile No.78884-59837
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman,
The Mall, Patiala.
2. Chief Engineer/DS, Central Zone, Ludhiana.
3. Addl. S.E., Model Town (Spl.) Division, Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, Ludhiana.
......Respondents/Opposite parties
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 06.05.2022 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Kapurthala, Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Arun Garg, Auth. Representative For the respondent : Sh.Sunpreet Singh, Advocate HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant-Smt. Shimla Garg against the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala at Camp Court, Ludhiana whereby the First Appeal No 589 of 2022 2 complaint filed by the respondent /complainant was disposed of by passing the following order:
" Since we have already ordered that the Ops will not disconnect the supply in case the complainant is not in default of the bills. In such event, issuing of another meter would not be needed and will suffice the purpose of the complainant. Since the second complaint was filed after two months of the first complaint and complainant might have been under the impression that the Ops department would might disturb the electric supply, as such, she felt the need of applying for a new connection. In case, husband of complainant returns to his place or any need arises to the complainant, in such event on application made by complainant at first floor to the Ops, the Ops would issue separate connection in the same house in terms of regulations 6.5.2 of the PSPCL Supply Code 2014 without causing any delay. Both the complaints are disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs. Application regarding discrepancies in provided periodic electricity bills filed by complainant also stands disposed off accordingly."
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that two complaints were instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties with the prayer that electricity connection supply should not be disconnected without adopting the legal procedure and second complaint was instituted with the prayer that separate domestic electricity connection should be given on the first floor of the house. First Appeal No 589 of 2022 3
3. Firstly, the complainant -Smt. Shimla Garg filed a complaint against the opposite parties for restoration of electricity supply, whereas in the second complaint, she sought the directions of the opposite parties -Department for installation of new domestic electric supply. Further alleging that the husband of the complainant Sham Lal Garg was residing separately and only the complainant who is making the payment of the electricity bills raised by the opposite parties and she is the consumer of the electric supply. She was paying the expenses of the bills regularly. On 04.06.2015, without any intimation to her, electricity supply was disconnected but the same was restored when the complaint was filed to police on 05.06.2015. Again on 17.12.2015, without any intimation and checking, the electricity supply was disconnected and meter was having the reading of 21493, resulting deficiency in service. However, the supply was restored on 02.12.2016. This act and conduct of the opposite parties compelled the complainant to file the complaint against the opposite parties seeking the following reliefs:
i) to restore the illegally disconnected power supply to the house of complainant;
ii) to discontinue such unfair trade practice and not to repeat the same;
iii) To pay Rs.98,000/- towards compensation and litigation and legal consultation charges.
4. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their reply taking preliminary objections that neither the complainant nor son First Appeal No 589 of 2022 4 namely Arun Kumar Gupta were cooperating with the official staff of the opposite parties. They also misbehaved with the staff of the meter checking. The incident was reported to AEE Technical There was no irregularity done by the officials nor there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The previous bills were issued in the name of Sham Lal Garg and the complainant and she has no locus standi to file the present complaint.
5. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions before the District Commission and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the complaint was disposed of, vide impugned order dated 06.05.2022.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant for modifying the order dated 06.05.2022 and to allow the appeal.
7. We have heard the contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the same.
8. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant assailing the order of the District Commission and alleged that it is incomplete order with inadequate relief as all the relevant documents were produced by the appellant/complainant to prove the fault on the part of the respondents/opposite parties and malpractice and unfair trade practice adopted by them and the appellant/complainant prayed for exemplary costs and damages to be levied on the First Appeal No 589 of 2022 5 respondents/opposite parties. Though, the impugned order reveals that nobody was present on behalf of the parties when the order was passed showing that the matter was not argued at the relevant time. Despite that relief was granted by the District Commission directing the respondent/ opposite parties not to disconnect the supply to the premises of the appellant/complainant, if there is no default in payment of bills and there is no need to grant other relief sought by the appellant/ complainant for separate electricity connection. It was further observed by the District Commission that in case the husband of the appellant/complainant returns then the request of the appellant/ complainant for grant of separate electricity connection on the first floor may be considered under the Rules and Regulations of PSPCL Supply Code 2014.
9. This shows that the main relief which was sought by the appellant/ complainant in both, firstly against the disconnection and secondly for supply of second meter has already been granted by the District Commission. However, Sh.Arun Kumar, who appeared in person on behalf of the appellant/complainant, while arguing the matter admitted that both the reliefs have been granted. However, he alleged for the compensation and costs, as prayed be given. Meaning thereby, the prayer for paying Rs.98,000/-, as compensation and litigation expenses, has not been considered and no compensation has been granted to the appellant/ complainant. Whereas, the facts of the complaint and the attitude of the appellant/complainant reveals that she has filed this appeal under greed to get money from the respondents/opposite parties First Appeal No 589 of 2022 6 ignoring the fact that statute with a benevolent intentions has enacted the Consumer Protection Act to safeguard the interest of the innocent consumers who being exploited by unscrupulous manufacturers, traders or by the service providers and it is not meant for to make undue enrichment of the consumers by giving them the exemplary costs just with no fault of the service providers, manufacturer or traders. When the District Commission has clearly addressed both the grievances of the appellant/complainant, then there was no occasion for the appellant/complainant to file the appeal. We are of the opinion that proper relief has already been granted by the District Commission keeping in view the prayer of the appellant/complainant, hence no other relief is required.
10. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed and the order of the District Commission is upheld.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER May 16th, 2023 parmod