State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Kuldip Singh on 21 November, 2013
1
First Appeal No. 2176 of 2010
1st Additional Bench
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHAN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 2176 of 2010
Date of institution : 27.12.2010
Date of decision : 21.11.2013
1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Muktsar Division,
Mukatsar.
3. Sub Division Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, D/S Rupana.
.......Appellants
Versus
Kuldip Singh age 32 years son of S. Thana Singh S/o Bish Singh R/o Village
Mehrajwala, Tehsil & District Mukatsar.
......Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
04.11.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Mukatsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member ...................................
Present:-
None for the appellants Sh. Jatin Arora, Advocate, counsel for the respondent
------------------------------------ ----------- VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER:-
This appeal was filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties (hereinafter called appellants) under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 04.11.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in 2 First Appeal No. 2176 of 2010 short the District Forum) vide which the complaint of the respondent was accepted.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Sh. Kuldip Singh-
respondent/complainant (hereinafter called the respondent) filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short the Act) against the appellants making the averments that he applied for tubewell connection on 05.09.1997 with the appellants under the scheme of Punjab State Electricity Board who provided the electric connection to the Agriculturist of the land under the water logging area. The respondent deposited Rs.360/- as security vide receipt No. 269 dated 5.9.1997 and also deposited Rs. 18640/- by way of the fee/cost for issuance of electric connection vide receipt No. 459 dated 18.02.2009. The appellants prepared the revised list of seniority for issuing of connections and the respondent installed tubewell and motor. The test report was submitted on 18.02.2009 by the respondent. It was alleged that the appellant violated the seniority list which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The respondent filed the complaint seeking direction to the appellants to install and release the electric motor connection in the land of the respondent at village Mehrajwala and to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental tension, pain, agony and litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, the appellants replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the respondent is not maintainable in the present form. The respondent has concealed the material facts from the District Forum so he is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the complaint. The complaint of the respondent is false, frivolous and vexatious.
3First Appeal No. 2176 of 2010
4. On merits, it was admitted that the seniority number of the respondent was 27. The connection would be released as per the policy of the PSEB and the appellant had not released any connection to any consumer till today. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
5. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their contentions.
6. As per the order dated 02.08.2010 Sh. Robin Arora, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner vide letter No. DCF/MKTS/2591 dated 11.08.2010 and he submitted his report on 27.08.2010.
7. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 04.11.2010 accepted the complaint.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.11.2010, the appellant have come up in the appeal.
9. The appeal was filed by the appellants on the following grounds :
"That the District Consumer Forum has gravely erred in not appreciating the vital fact that the connection to the tubewell of the respondent had already been released in the month of June, 2010, but the learned District Forum has disbelieved the same as the counsel could not produce the document with regard to the release of tubewell connection at the time of addressing the arguments, however he made a request to the learned Forum to produce the same later on, but the learned Forum turned down the request on the ground that the evidence of the appellants had already been closed and these documents could not be considered at this stage and passed the impugned order. The learned District Forum had 4 First Appeal No. 2176 of 2010 also gravely erred in appreciating the procured report of the Local Commissioner in which Local Commissioner had given the wrong report at the instance of the respondent. The Local Commissioner has wrongly mentioned in his report that Sr. No. 31 to 36 have been given tubewell connection and the same were in running condition and ignored the Sr. No. 27 of the respondent. The learned District Forum has taken into consideration the statement of the respondent that the power connection of the respondent has not been released till 01.11.2010 while he had been enjoying the power connection since June, 2010. The District Forum had not applied the judicious mind and a compensation @ Rs. 1000/- per day from 19.06.2006 till the actual date of installation of power connection inspite of the fact that the connection had already been released to the respondent in the month of June, 2010. It was prayed that the appeal may be accepted and the impugned order dated 4.11.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Muktsar may be set aside."
10. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and perused the record of the learned District Forum and also heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent. Neither counsel for the appellant nor any body on behalf of the appellant appeared at the time of arguments.
11. It is an admitted fact that the respondent had applied the tubewell connection on 5.9.97 with the appellants. The respondent deposited Rs. 360/- as security vide receipt No. 269 dated 5.9.97 Ex. C-2. The respondent also deposited Rs. 18640/- on account of fee/cost of electric connection vide receipt No. 459 dated 18.02.2009 Ex. C-3. It is also admitted fact that the appellant 5 First Appeal No. 2176 of 2010 prepared revised list of seniority for issue of connection upto 5.6.2009 Ex. C-5. The name of the respondent was placed at Sr. No. 27 as per the seniority list of the appellants. As per the order dated 2.8.2010 the learned District Forum appointed Sh. Robin Arora, Advocate as Local Commissioner and he submitted his report on 27.8.2010. We have perused the report of the Local Commissioner which shows that the name of the respondent was shown at Sr. No. 27 of the seniority list. Sr. No. 31 to 36 have been given tubewell connection and the same were in running condition and ignored the Sr. No. 27 of the respondent. But the report of the Local Commissioner is not correct because the appellant has already issued the tubewell connection in the month of June, 2010 as per Annexure-A2 dated 10.06.2010. The respondent has placed on record the list of material Exb. C-6, copy of Jamabandi Ex. C-7 and copy of Khasra Godawari Ex. C-8. We have also perused the Ledger Register of the appellant which shows that the connection had already been released in the month of June, 2010. The appellant has placed on record the list of the Tubewell Connections handed over in Sem Area Annexure A-1. The respondent has given the statement before the District Forum that the power connection has not been released till date i.e. 1.11.2010. But the connection has already been released in the month of June, 2010. But the District Forum has not considered this fact. So the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
12. In view of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted and the impugned order dated 04.11.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs. 6 First Appeal No. 2176 of 2010
13. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 25000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant No. 2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days from the date of passing of the order.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 08.11.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member November 21, 2013 kalyan 7 First Appeal No. 2176 of 2010