State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Bard vs Karaj Singh on 22 August, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1334 of 2007
Date of institution : 01.10.2007
Date of decision : 22.08.2012
Punjab State Electricity Bard through :
1. Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
2. XEN, Malout
3. SDO (Distribution), Sub Division (Rural), Malout.
.....Appellants
Versus
Karaj Singh son of Sh.Bahal Singh son of Sh.Kala Singh resident of Dhani
Kartar Singh Village Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.
...........Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 30.07.2007
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member.
Sardar Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellant : Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Pankaj Sahota, Advocate for
Sh.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short the District Forum) vide which the OP was directed as under : -
1. to provide Dhani of complainant Kartar Singh without any further demand or charges electric supply for 24 hours within a month of receipt of copy of order. First Appeal No.1334 of 2007 2
2. to pay him compensation Rs.5000 and litigation cost of Rs.2000/-.
2. The present complaint was filed by Karj Singh alleging that he is resident of Dhani Kartar Singh of village Malout and he is consuming electricity through a meter installed by the OPs. The OPs have floated a scheme providing 24 hours electricity to village Dhani by depositing the prescribed amount with the OP and that the residents of Dhani deposited the requisite amount with them and complied with all the formalities and were entitled to 24 hour electric supply. They have also purchased a 16 KVA transformer on 13.6.2006 for Rs.24,195/- which was installed by the OP appellant in place of the old transformer and the complainant and others were assured that 24 hour electric supply would be started within a few days. 24 hour electric supply, however, was not started even inspite of the requests. Ultimately, the complainant filed the present complaint on 1.12.2006 directing the OPs to start the electric supply and also pay them a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OPs alleging that the same is not maintainable in the present form and the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. It was admitted that there is electric supply to the Dhani in which the complainant was residing; that they had floated the scheme to supply 24 hour electric supply and that the residents of Dhani Kartar Singh have applied for electric supply to their houses. It was also admitted that the complainant deposited Rs.5000/- with the OP but due to misunderstanding and mis-representation of the Scheme, the OP had prepared a wrong estimate of Rs.15,704/- to supply electricity from the tubewell connection feeder whereas the electricity supply was to be given from another feeder for which the OPs were to deposit Rs.41,153/-. It was First Appeal No.1334 of 2007 3 alleged that the complainant and others have deposited only Rs.15,704/- and when the remaining amount of Rs.25,449/- was deposited, 24 hour supply would be started. According to them, the new transformer supplied by the complainant has not been installed nor the old one has been removed. They would install the new transformer only if the complainant deposited the remaining amount of Rs.25,449/- and thereafter, 24 hour electric supply would be given to the complainant. The other allegations were denied.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 30.7.2007 allowed the complaint in terms stated above. The OP has challenged the same through the present appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The OP has admitted that the estimate Ex.C1 was prepared by their official in view of which the complainant was to deposit Rs.24,013/- for being entitled to 24 hour electric supply. Ex.C1, however, shows that this estimate was reduced to Rs.15,704/-. There is no dispute about it that the complainant and others have since deposited the said amount of Rs.15,704/- as is mentioned in the letter Ex.OP2 which was issued on 7.3.2007 after the complainant filed the present complaint on 1.12.2006. Admittedly, there was delay on the part of the OPs in releasing the electric connection. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that subsequently, an estimate asking the complainant to deposit another amount of Rs.25,449/- was issued to punish the complainant who had filed the present complaint against them. First Appeal No.1334 of 2007 4
8. When the amount of Rs.15,704/- as assessed by the OPs has already been deposited and the complainant and others had already purchased 16 KVA transformer on 13.6.2006 vide Ex.C4, it was necessary for the OPs to have released 24 hour electric supply to the Dhani Kartar Singh village. This is also admitted that even after a lapse of 5 months, right from 10.7.2006 on which date the additional amount of Rs.10,704/- was deposited vide Ex.C3 till the filing of the present complaint on 1.12.2006, the supply was not released. It was deficiency in service on their part.
9. The contention of the OP is that in fact the estimate of Rs.15,704/- was wrongly prepared by their officials and the supply was proposed to be given from the tubewell feeder which could not be allowed under the Rules. This fact itself shows the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs when inspite of preparing the correct estimate, they prepared the estimate of Rs.15,704/- gave assurance to the complainant that on deposit of this amount, 24 hour electric supply would be released but they did not. It shows that the officials of the OP were negligent and have caused harassment to the complainant and others.
10. The contention of the OP that under their Rules, they cannot give the 24 hour electric supply from the tubewell feeder is not proved from any document. The OPs did not produce any such rules and regulations governing the release of the connection to suggest if the 24 hour a day supply could be given only from a residential feeder. They have not produced any such rules and regulations to suggest if the earlier estimate to release the supply from a tubewell feeder was contrary to their rules and regulations. Even if it was so, when once they have asked for the deposit of certain estimate which has since been deposited by the OP, the only course open to the OPs was to release the electric supply but they did not. The First Appeal No.1334 of 2007 5 contention of the OP that the wrong estimate was prepared, therefore, cannot be accepted as correct.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant then referred to para 5 (v) and para 8 of the memorandum of appeal in which it was mentioned that the electric supply was provided by the appellants to the said Dhani during the pendency of the complaint before the learned District Forum and, therefore, the complaint had become infructuous and should have been dismissed as such. It is argued that the appeal be allowed and the said order be set aside. This argument also is devoid of merit. Along with the memorandum of appeal, the appellant did not produce any such documents to suggest on which date the 24 hour electric supply was provided to the complainant respondent. The assertion made in the memorandum of appeal is false and baseless and appears to have been made just to mislead the Commission and to seek an order in their favour by asserting false facts. Had the electric connection been provided during the pendency of the complaint, the OP appellant would have mentioned the same before the learned District Forum instead of opposing the complaint. In fact, when the amount had been deposited, the OP should not have opposed the complaint and should have made a statement to release the connection instead of wasting their own time and money in opposing the complaint and ultimately, releasing the connection. There appears to be something wrong with functioning of the OP. It is also not proper to mention false facts in the memorandum of appeal regarding which no supporting documents has been provided. The OP would have avoided the filing of the appeal because the grant of the electric supply was in compliance to the order passed by the learned District Forum. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the contention of the OP-appellant that the electric supply had already been started during the pendency of the First Appeal No.1334 of 2007 6 complaint is a false contention raised by them only to mislead this Commission.
12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. The OP appellant shall pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.
13. In order to safeguard the interest of the OP, it is made clear that the OP appellant would be free to recover the amount of compensation and costs from the officials who delayed the release of the connection and also who filed this frivolous appeal instead of complying with the orders passed by the learned District Forum. The amount, however, shall be recovered after serving a notice on the said officials giving them an opportunity of being heard as required under the relevant service rules.
14. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.3500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 1.10.2007. This amount of Rs.3500/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER August 22, 2012.
Paritosh