State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
V.P.Goyal vs Manjit Kaur on 29 September, 2011
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
Revision Petition No.43 of 2011
Date of institution: 26.07.2011
Date of decision : 29.09.2011
1. V.P.Goyal, Sr. Executive Engineer, Authorised Signatory of Punjab State
Power Corporation Limited, Sub Urban Operation Division, Sunam, Distt.
Sangrur.
2. Gurinder Singh, Assistant Engineer, (SDO I/C) Punjab State Power
Corporation Ltd., Urban Sub Division, Lehra Gaga, Distt. Sangrur.
.....Petitioners
Versus
Manjit Kaur wife of Balraj Singh r/o village Nangla, Sub Division Lehra, Distt.
Sangrur.
.....Respondent
Revision Petition against the orders dated
13.06.2011 and 14.07.2011 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Mr.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the petitioners : Sh.Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Rajbir Singh, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT This order will dispose of two Revision Petitions namely RP No.43 of 2011 (V.P.Goyal and another v. Manjit Kaur) and RP No.44 of 2011 (V.P.Goyal and another v. Nand Singh) as the questions of law and facts involved in both these revision petitions are identical. The facts are taken from Revision Petition No.43 of 2011 and the parties would be referred by their status in this petition.
2. Manjit Kaur respondent had filed a complaint against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, the Mall Patiala and the Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Sub Division Rural, Lehra Gaga, District Sangrur alleging deficiency in service. Notice was sent to the petitioners. The District Forum had passed the interim order dated 14.9.2010 to the following effect : -
"14.9.2010 Present : Shri Sanjiv Goyal, Adv. for CC Revision Petition No.43 of 2011 2 Shri Dhara Pal Garg, Adv. for OPs.
Case be listed for reply on 4.10.2010.
Connection of the complainant be restored subject to deposit of ½ amount of demanded amount of Rs.55,869/- demanded through final notice number 1830 dated 8.9.10."
3. The respondent deposited the amount in the office of the petitioners on 15.9.2010 (Annexure P-5). The electric connection was not restored, on which, the respondent initiated contempt proceedings by filing application dated 23.9.2010 (Annexure P-3). The PSPCL filed the reply dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-4), in which, it was admitted that the respondent had deposited 50% of the disputed amount but it was pleaded that the AP electric connection in question was already restored as per the orders of the District Forum. Thereafter, the learned District Forum passed the order dated 13.6.2011 as under : -
"13.6.2011Present : Shri Sanjeev Goyal Adv. for DH.
Shri S.P.Sharma, Adv. proxy for counsel for JDs.
After perusing the file, we are of the opinion that the presence of the JDs before this Forum is necessary because the order of this Forum was not complied with. The default on the part of the JDs is punishable with the imprisonment and/or fine, therefore, the order is to be passed in the presence of JDs. Let, JDs be produced before this Forum on 5.7.2011."
4. Thereafter, the learned District Forum passed the order dated 14.7.2011 as under : -
"14.7.2011 Present : Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Adv. for DH.
Shri D.P. Garg, Adv. for JD Revision Petition No.43 of 2011 3 JDs have not appeared. The learned counsel for JDs states that he has received a telephonic message from the JDs that they could not come because of their Greh Parvesh Ceremony. There are two JDs in this case and no written request has been received for exemption. In case the application is accepted, JDs are liable for imprisonment and/ or fine. If there was some sufficient cause for non appearance the JDs should have moved an application for exemption before this Forum. It is directed that the bailable warrants be issued against both the JDs in the sum of Rs.2000/- with one surety in the like amount securing their presence on 1.8.2011."
5. Hence, this petition against the orders dated 13.6.2011 and 14.7.2011.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that immediately after the respondent had deposited 50% of the disputed amount, the verification report was sought from the Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Punjab, Patiala. The verification report was sent by the Chief Electrical Inspector on 4.10.2010 and in compliance with the verification report, the AP electric connection of the respondent was restored on 6.10.2010.
7. It is also submitted that the petitioners were not at fault. The verification report from the Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Punjab was necessary and on receipt of the same, the order of the District Forum was complied with immediately without any unreasonable delay. Hence, it was prayed that the petition be accepted and the impugned orders dated 13.6.2011 and 14.7.2011 be set aside.
8. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that the learned District Forum had passed the order of restoration on 14.9.2010. In compliance with this order, the respondent had deposited 50% of Revision Petition No.43 of 2011 4 the disputed amount with the petitioners on 15.9.2010 itself but the electric connection was restored on 6.10.2010 i.e. after the expiry of 21 days. Therefore, the petitioners had intentionally disobeyed the order passed by the District Forum on 14.9.2010 for such a long time. It was, therefore, submitted that there was no merit in the present petition and the same be dismissed.
9. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
10. The order was passed by the District Forum on 14.9.2010. In compliance with the order dated 14.9.2010, the respondent had deposited the amount on 15.9.2010. The verification report was sent by the Chief Electrical Inspector vide letter dated 4.10.2010. Therefore, the electric connection of the respondent could have been restored only, thereafter. It was restored on 6.10.2010. Therefore, there was no intentional delay on the part of the petitioners in restoring the electric connection. It may be noted that it was not the domestic connection.
11. Accordingly, this petition is accepted and the impugned orders dated 13.6.2011 and 14.7.2011 are set aside.
12. The learned District Forum would be at liberty to proceed with the complaint filed by the respondent and to decide the same on merits.
13. The arguments in this petition were heard on 27.9.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER September 29 , 2011.
Paritosh