State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs Dalip Singh on 8 October, 2020
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.201 of 2020
Date of institution : 12.06.2020
Reserved On : 30.09.2020
Date of decision : 08.10.2020
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Urban Sub Division,
Jalalabad (W), Tehsil Jalalabad, District Fazilka, through its Assistant
Executive Engineer.
....Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Dalip Singh, aged 65 years, son of Sh. Shankar Singh, Resident of
Village Chak Kathgarh, Tehsil Jalalabad (W), District Fazilka, PIN
Code 152024, Mobile:94646-03143.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
12.12.2019 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No
Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Harsh Raheja, Advocate
(Both through Video Conferencing)
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short, "the District Forum", now "District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection First Appeal No.201 of 2020 2 Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite party was directed to restore the tubewell connection of the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum. Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is an agriculturist. He is the only bread winner of his family and depends only on his agriculture income. It was averred that in the year 2007, he applied for release of new electric tubewell connection with the opposite party and completed all the requisite formalities. Before the installation of said connection, the complainant had exchanged his agriculture land, where the said connection was to be installed, with one Paramjit Singh son of Santa Singh son of Hakam Singh and in lieu thereof, he took possession of the land of said Paramjit Singh. The Exchange Deed was duly executed and the same was handed over to the officials of the opposite party at the time of their visit to the spot. The complainant, along with Paramjit Singh and Santa Singh, also intimated the opposite party about the fact of exchange of land between them. Thereafter, the opposite party installed the electric tubewell connection in the land in the year 2016, vide connection No.MD1-2015 (A & A No.17748 dated 30.3.2007). A sum of more than ₹80,000/- was charged by the opposite party for installing the connection. Since then, the complainant had been using the said electric tubewell connection peacefully without any First Appeal No.201 of 2020 3 interruption. However, the complainant was served with a notice bearing Memo No.1432 dated 30.11.2018, in which reference of another notice bearing Memo No.1322 dated 29.10.2018 was given, which was never received by the complainant. Vide that notice, the opposite party asked the complainant to clarify, as to how the electric connection had been installed in the land of Santa Singh. The complainant sent reply, clarifying that an oral exchange took place between him and Santa Singh and thereafter the land of Santa Singh was transferred in the name of his son Paramjit Singh and then Paramjit Singh entered into Exchange Deed of the said land with the complainant. Copy of Exchange Deed was supplied to the opposite party, along with the Jamabandi containing the mutation in this regard. Thereafter, the opposite party wrongly and illegally disconnected the said electric motor connection and took away the cable, transformer and poles etc. Thereafter, the opposite party sent notice dated 18.12.2018 through ordinary post; which was received by the complainant much after 09.01.2019. The complainant approached and requested the opposite party several times to re-install the electric connection in his land, but without any result. He also served a legal notice dated 09.01.2019 upon the opposite party, requesting it to reinstate the electric connection, but to no effect. The complainant also issued corrigendum notice dated 15.02.2019 and supplied certified copy of Jamabandi containing exchange of land, but no action was taken by the opposite party. No opportunity of being heard was provided to the complainant, before disconnecting his electric First Appeal No.201 of 2020 4 connection. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant approached the District Forum, seeking following directions to it:
i) to reinstate the electric tubewell connection; ii) to pay ₹2,00,000/- as compensation and damages; and iii) to pay ₹11,000/- as litigation expenses. Defence of the Opposite Party
4. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before the District Forum and filed reply to the complaint, raising preliminary objections regarding no deficiency in service, suppression of material facts, involvement of complicated questions of law etc. It was further pleaded that the complainant has played fraud and he is guilty of cheating the PSPCL. He got the electric connection installed in the land, which was not owned by him at the time of installation of the electric connection. According to rules and instructions of the PSPCL, the consumer can get the connection installed only in the land owned by him. The complainant had sworn a false affidavit dated 12.08.2016 to the effect that he did not own any tubewell connection in the State of Punjab, but he was already having an electric tubewell connection bearing account No.MD1-1703 (AP13/1703). Therefore, the electric connection had been disconnected, as per rules and instructions of the PSPCL. It was further pleaded that one Inder Singh son of Boor Singh had lodged a complaint in this regard. Vide letters dated 29.10.2018, 30.11.2018, 14.12.2018 and 18.12.2018, the complainant was informed that at the time of submission of the test report, he submitted First Appeal No.201 of 2020 5 the Jamabandi for Khewat No.238/217 only, but did not submit the Jamabandi for Khewat No.239/218. He was also asked to explain as to whether on 26.08.2016 the land bearing M25 Killa No.5 Khewat No.239/218 was in his name or not. No connection can be given under the priority category, if the consumer is already having connection. Circular No.44/2015 is applicable to the facts of the present case. On merits, it was denied that the complainant had exchanged his agriculture land with Paramjit Singh son of Santa Singh. It was pleaded that the electric connection, in question, had already been disconnected, vide PDCO No.67/9783 dated 21.12.2018, as per rules and instruction of PSPCL; which was executed on the spot on 31.12.2018. The entire installed material was removed, vide SJO No.49/34 dated 27.12.2018. He has cooked up the story about exchange of land later on in order to retain the connection. The legal notice was also replied, vide registered post letter dated 20.03.2019. All other allegations levelled in the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Evidence of the Parties and Finding of the District Forum
5. The complainant, in support of his claim, tendered his own affidavits as Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, along with documents i.e. Jamabandies Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, letter dated 29.10.2018 Ex.C-5, letter dated 30.11.2018 Ex.C-6, letter Ex.C-7, Exchange Deed dated 12.01.2016 Ex.C-8, legal notice dated 09.01.2019 Ex.C-9, postal receipts Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-12, corrigendum to legal notice dated First Appeal No.201 of 2020 6 15.02.2019 Ex.C-13, postal receipt Ex.C-14, letter dated 18.12.2018 Ex.C-15 and A.D. Ex.C-16 and Aadhaar Card Ex.C-17.
6. The opposite party, in support of its defence, tendered affidavit of Er. Chander Dev, SDO as Ex.OP-1, along with documents i.e. letter dated 20.03.2019 Ex.OP-2, letter dated 14.12.2015 Ex.OP-3, letter dated 30.11.2018 Ex.OP-4, letter dated 29.10.2018 Ex.OP-5, letter Ex.OP-6, affidavit of the complainant Ex.OP-7 and policy/guidelines for release of tubewell electric connection Ex.OP-8.
7. The District Forum, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
Contentions of the Parties
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties through Videoconferencing, due to pandemic of COVID-19 and have also carefully gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondent/complainant and records of the case.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the complainant had procured the tubewell electric connection, by way of fraud. The said electric connection was disconnected on two grounds; firstly that the connection the complainant got installed the connection in the land which was not his ownership at the time of installation of the electric connection. Secondly, the complainant had applied under priority category quota, in which an affidavit was required to be given that he does not possess any other connection in the State of Punjab. However, the undertaking of the complainant has First Appeal No.201 of 2020 7 been found to be false, as he is already having another electric connection bearing No.MD1/1703 (AP13/1703). The complainant has not given any clarification on this point, despite issuance of various letters to him. As per Commercial Circular No.44 of 2015, Ex.OP-8, the connection can only be granted to the applicant, holding land up to 5 acres; who has no other tubewell connection in the State of Punjab. Since the complainant was already having aforesaid electric connection, so the electric connection, in question, has been rightly disconnected as per rules. It was further contended that as per legal notice dated 15.02.2019 sent by the complainant, the alleged transfer of land took place only on 14.11.2018, whereas in his reply to letter dated 30.11.2018, he alleged that the oral exchange had taken place earlier. Thus, the case of the complainant is based on misleading statements and concealment of material facts. It was also contended that the complainant has not filed any replication to the reply filed by the opposite party and it amounts to admission of the complainant regarding the stand taken by the opposite party. The District Forum failed to take notice of these facts and circumstances and passed a wrong order, which is liable to be set aside.
10. The written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondent/complainant are on the lines of the complaint. The sum and substance of oral and written arguments is that the complainant had applied for release of tubewell electric connection, in question, much earlier in the year 2007 and completed all the formalities. The opposite party charged more than ₹80,000/- from him for that purpose. First Appeal No.201 of 2020 8 Before the installation of the electric connection, the complainant had exchanged his agriculture land, vide Exchange Deed dated 12.01.2016, situated in Rect. No.20 with land falling in Rect. No.25 Killa No.5 owned and possessed by one Paramjit Singh S/o Sh. Santa Singh, falling in revenue estate of village Chak Kathgarh, Tehsil Jalalabad. Even prior to execution of said Exchange Deed, the complainant was in possession of the said land as per oral exchange of his land with Santa Singh, father of Paramjit Singh, who was the previous owner of the said land. The opposite party installed the electric connection after due verification of land and other documents and the complainant started using the same without any interruption. However, after a gap of two years, the opposite party disconnected the electric connection, in question, on the false complaint of one Inderjit Singh, without issuance any prior notice to the complainant. The complainant is earning his livelihood by using the said connection for agricultural purpose and by disconnecting the connection, the opposite party caused financial loss to the complainant, besides mental agony and harassment. The complainant never concealed any fact and supplied/explained each and every document/point to the opposite party. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the matter and has passed a valid order. The appeal is meritless and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Consideration of Contentions
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
First Appeal No.201 of 2020 9
12. Admittedly, the complainant had applied for release of electric tubewell connection with the opposite party in the year 2007 and supplied all the necessary documents and completed all the formalities. The said connection was released and installed by the opposite party in the fields of the complainant after a long period of nine years i.e. on 26.08.2016. The complainant spent a sum of more than ₹80,000/- for installation of the electric tubewell connection etc. and this fact has not been denied by the opposite party in its reply. However, the opposite party disconnected the electric connection, in question, on the ground that the land, in which the electric connection was installed, is not ownership of the complainant and he already owns another electric connection in his name, which was against the rules and regulations of PSPCL. The officials of the opposite party even took away the pole, cable and transformer etc. with them.
13. It needs to be mentioned that prior to disconnecting the electric connection, the opposite party issued notice dated 30.11.2018 Ex.C-6, asking the complainant to explain, as to why the electric connection had been got installed in the land of Santa Singh. In that notice, reference of letter dated 29.10.2018, Ex.C-5, was also given, but the complainant alleged that he never received that letter. Be that as it may, the complainant sent reply to notice Ex.C-6, vide letter Ex.C- 7, stating that earlier he was owner of land bearing Rect. No.20 Killa No.24 (6-15), 25 (1-5) in village Chak Kathgarh, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Fazilka. The said land was exchanged by him with Sh. Santa Singh in lieu of his land bearing Rect. No.25 Killa No.5. Sh. Santa First Appeal No.201 of 2020 10 Singh had transferred the said land in the name of his son Sh. Paramjit Singh. Later on, Exchange Deed dated 12.01.2016 Ex.C-6 was duly executed between the complainant and Sh. Paramjit Singh regarding that land. Furthermore, as per Jamabandies for the year 2012-2013, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, the complainant is owner of the land, in question, where the electric connection, in question, was installed and the mutation No.2032 was also sanctioned in his favour on 14.11.2018. The complainant also supplied the said Exchange Deed and copies of Jamabandies, Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3, to the opposite parties to prove his ownership over the land, in question.
14. From the year 2007 to 2016, the opposite party had a sufficient period of nine years to clear if there was any doubt regarding ownership of land, in question, in the name of the complainant. During all this long period, it did not raise any objection or put any query and released and installed the electric connection in the fields of the complainant in the year 2016. The opposite party has also not produced the Demand Notice/A & A Form or any other document(s) concerning the apply/release of the electric connection, in question, to the complainant. The connection was released by the opposite party after visiting the spot and verifying all the ingredients for release of the connection and now it does not lie in its mouth that the connection has been illegally got released. It woke up after a long slumber only after receipt of alleged complaint, Ex.OP-6, sent by one Inder Singh S/o Boor Singh, R/o Village Chak Kathgarh, Tehsil Jalalabad. However, it is to be kept in mind that firstly the complainant had to wait for a long First Appeal No.201 of 2020 11 period of nine year for release of the electric connection and after installation of the same, he spent a huge amount of more than ₹80,000/-. Since the land, in question, has been transferred and the mutation has also been sanctioned in the name of the complainant, therefore, the plea of the opposite party that the land, where the electric connection has been installed, does not belong to the complainant is not tenable and the electric connection has been disconnected illegally and arbitrarily.
15. So far as the other ground raised by the opposite party that the complainant did not disclose that he is already having another electric connection and he gave a wrong affidavit, is concerned, it needs to be mentioned that in the initial notices dated 29.10.2018 and 30.11.2018 Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6, the opposite party sought clarification from the complainant, only as to why he got installed the electric connection in the land of Santa Singh. It is nowhere alleged in those notices that the complainant was already having another electric connection or he gave any false affidavit. Even after receiving clarification on the above said point, the opposite party did not raise the said issue in its letter dated 18.12.2018 Ex.C-15. The opposite party raised the issue of another electric connection in the name of the complainant, only vide letter dated 20.03.2019 Ex.OP-2 and in its reply. It needs to be emphasized that the electric connection, in question, was disconnected by the opposite party, vide PDCO No.67/9783 dated 21.12.2018 i.e. three months prior to issuance of aforesaid letter Ex.C-15. Thus, it is clear from the record that the First Appeal No.201 of 2020 12 alleged ground of complainant's having another connection was not the basis of disconnection, which was only effected on the sole ground of installation of connection in the land of Santa Singh. When the said ground was not made the basis of disconnection, so its enforcement at a later stage loses its significance. It also needs to be mentioned that the electric connection, in question, was applied by the complainant in the year 2007, whereas the opposite party is relying upon Commercial Circular No.44 of 2015 Ex.OP-8. The opposite party has failed to produce the relevant Circular regarding apply/release of AP connections pertaining to the year 2007. In the absence of the relevant Circular pertaining to the year 2007, such a plea of the opposite party cannot be accepted. Furthermore, it is not disclosed by the opposite party as to when the other connection was released to the complainant. It is also not proved on record that the alleged connection was taken by the complainant prior to the release of the electric connection, in question, or prior to giving aforesaid undertaking/ affidavit by the complainant. The opposite party could have produced the relevant record pertaining to the alleged connection, but it has not done so, for the reasons best known to it; for which an adverse inference is drawn against it.
16. So far as the plea of the opposite party that the complainant did not file replication/rejoinder to the reply and it amounts to admission of its stand taken in the reply, is concerned, it needs to be emphasized that the law does not provide that it is obligatory for the complainant/applicant to file replication/rejoinder, merely denying the First Appeal No.201 of 2020 13 pleadings made by the opposite party in the reply. Failure to file replication/rejoinder cannot be treated as admission of the pleas taken in the reply/written statement. The complainant's version in the complaint is sufficient denial of version of the opposite party in its reply. In this regard, I am fortified from the view taken by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case Suresh v. Sanjay Garg 2012 (5) RCR (Civil) 791.
17. In view of my above discussion, it is proved that the electric connection, in question, has been illegally and arbitrarily disconnected by the opposite party. The District Forum has only ordered for restoration of the electric connection, in question, and no compensation etc. has been awarded. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
18. Accordingly, the appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT October 08, 2020.
(Gurmeet S)