State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... vs Kulbir Singh on 15 May, 2024
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.121 of 2022
Date of Institution : 18.02.2022
Date of Reserve : 03.05.2024
Date of Decision : 15.05.2024
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Sub
Divisional Additional Officer, Sub Division Shahkot, District
Jalandhar.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its
Additional Superintendent Engineer, Urban Division Nakodar,
District Jalandhar.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its
Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
....Appellants/Opposite parties
Versus
Kulbir Singh aged about 62 years son of Late Charan Singh
resident of Village Sahlapur, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar
present residing in U.S.A. through Attorney Baljit Singh son of Late
Charan Singh resident of Village Sahlapur, Tehsil Shahkot, District
Jalandhar.
.....Respondent/complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
29.11.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Ms.Mehak Sawhney, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.L.S.Mann, Advocate First Appeal No 121 of 2022 2 HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties- PSPCL & Ors. against the orders dated 29.11.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short 'District Commission'), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act (in short 'the Act') was partly allowed and opposite parties were directed to issue the pass book and to provide transformer for the Tube-well connection bearing Account No.AP50/8377 as per record. They were further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.45,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment for arranging generator to irrigate the land and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
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 complaint are that the complainant applied for a tubewell connection in December, 2016. An estimate of Rs.1,18,833/- was passed by the opposite party for installation of Tube-well connection of 7.5 BHP. The amount was deposited in December 2016 with the opposite party. After observing the requisite formalities, tube well connection bearing A/C No.AP50/8377 was issued to the complainant in the first week of March, 2017. At the spot, electricity poles, wires and other equipments were installed for providing electricity supply to the tube well connection to the complainant from 11 KVA line First Appeal No 121 of 2022 3 (Buddanwal Feeder) and at that time only transfer of 10 KVA remains left to be installed for which an amount of Rs.34,870/- was deposited as mentioned at Sr.No.21 in the material list. Due to non-supply of tube-well connection, the complainant was forced to make arrangement of generator for the irrigation of his crops. On enquiry, he came to know that transformer which is to be provided to the complainant has already been withdrawn from the store of PSPCL along with other material. A suit was filed by Baljit Singh attorney against the opposite parties including one another person namely Akashpreet Singh on 03.07.2015 against the opposite parties for another tube-well connection. During the pendency of the suit, two false cases of electricity theft were got registered against Baljit Singh in order to pressurize him to withdraw that suit. On 18.09.2015 a complaint was sent to DGP PSPCL Vigilance and Security Patiala against exorbitances of Paramjit Gogia then SDO PSPCL Sub Division Shahkot. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 asked Baljit Singh that they will provide the transformer in case he withdraws the suit and deposit the full amount of fine for electricity theft, which he refused to do so. Case regarding the theft of electricity is pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 24.10.2017 was issued with the request to issue Pass Book and provide 10KVA T/F for the tube well connection bearing A/c No.AP50/8377. Reply to the notice was sent by opposite party No.1, vide letter No.76 dated 16.01.2018 and refused to do the needful. It is averred that the complainant is First Appeal No 121 of 2022 4 residing in USA since long, who has been falsely blamed for having committed electricity theft. This act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and compelled the complainant to file the complaint seeking following reliefs:
i) to issue Pass Book and to provide 10 KVA T/F for the Tube-well connection bearing A/c No.AP50/8377 of the complainant.
ii) to pay compensation / punitive damage quantified to Rs.50,000/- u/S 14(1)(d) of the Act.
iii) to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- as complainant has to bear unwarranted extra expenditure for the irrigation of his crops thereby making arrangement of the generator; and
iv) to award litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-;
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not disclosed the true facts. It is submitted that the connection has been applied at the place where earlier two times theft of electricity have been detected and as per the rules and regulations connection cannot be released at that place. Sh.Baljit Singh is not the duly constituted attorney of Kulbir Singh and infact he is misusing the land of the complainant. A case regarding theft of electricity is pending in the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant applied for the tubewell connection for agricultural purpose in First Appeal No 121 of 2022 5 December, 2016. It is also admitted that estimate of Rs.1,18,833/- was passed by the opposite party for the installation of the tubewell connection but it is denied that the said amount after deduction of labour charges were deposited in December, 2016. It is also not denied that the electricity poles with wires and other equipments were installed for providing the electricity connection to the complainant but when it was detected that the theft of the electricity already taken place from that point, therefore, as per the rules and regulations, connection cannot be released. Rest all the averments as averred by the complainant in his complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions before the District Commission and after hearing the contentions of the parties, the complaint was partly allowed, vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 and to allow their appeal.
6. We have heard the contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record as well as written arguments filed by the parties. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the same.
7. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties asserted that the attorney of the respondent/complainant namely Sh.Baljit Singh was involved in the criminal activities and First Appeal No 121 of 2022 6 also an FIR is lodged against him. Even, he was also involved in multiple theft cases of electricity and as per the provisions of 3.3.7 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, it has been clearly mentioned that if the consumer or representative are involved in the case of theft then the electricity connection should be kept in abeyance and that is why the electricity connection was not released to the applicant. He further contended that all these facts are concealed by the respondent/complainant while filing the complaint which amounts to concealment of material facts showing that the respondent/complainant has not come in the court with clean hands.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties admitted that Sh.Baljit Singh has been acquitted in those criminal cases instituted against him and only after his acquittal connection was released and regularize so there was no mala fide intention on behalf of the appellants/ opposite parties in releasing the connection and there is no deficiency in service as the appellants/opposite parties are working according to law and there is no manipulation of any type on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties.
9. Admittedly, the tube well connection bearing No.AP50/8377 was issued to the respondent/complainant in March, 2017 and he also deposited certain amount for the transformer. Now the only objection for the connection kept in abeyance is that Baljit Singh- attorney of the respondent/complainant was involved in different First Appeal No 121 of 2022 7 criminal cases. No doubt, as per the regulation the connection cannot be released to the person who is involved in theft of electricity. The relevant provision 3.3.7 is reproduced as under:
"3.3.7 Release of Connection/Additional load to a person involved in theft of electricity / UUE & Defaulting Consumers:
(unauthorized load, overhauling of account on the basis of MMTS/ENF, testing and re-assessment by audit etc.)
a) An applicant/ consumer or their associates applying for a new connection/extension in load shall give an undertaking that he/she they or his/her /their associates are neither involved in any case of theft of power/UUE anywhere in the state and nor any case for recovery of defaulting amount charged against him/her or their associates is pending and subsequently during processing of application if some amount becomes due or undertaking is found to be contrary to the facts then his/ her/their application shall not be processed and action shall be initiated as per prevailing Regulation of Hon'ble PSERC/Indian Electricity Act-2003 till such time 100% of outstanding dues are recovered.
b) For the applicant/consumer or their associates against whom any outstanding amount is due and no dispute of applicant / consumer or their associates is pending adjudication before any of the Dispute Settlement Committee / Forum / Ombudsman / Court / Appellate Authority then their application shall be registered only after recovery of 100% of outstanding dues.
c) In case, any dispute of applicant/consumer or their associates is pending adjudication before Dispute Settlement Committee/ Forum/ Ombudsman / Court/ Appellate Authority then the case for registration of new connection/ extension in load shall be considered after submission of duly signed undertaking by the applicant/ First Appeal No 121 of 2022 8 consumer or their associates that he/she/they shall abide by the decision of adjudicating authority.
d) While accepting A&A forms and requisition and allowing the feasibility clearance/ sanction of extension in load, instructions in the preceding paras shall be followed by the officers as per power vested in them. While forwarding such cases to the CE (Comml.) for feasibility clearance and to EIC/CE/ DS for sanction of load/demand suitable certificates in light of above instructions indicating clear eligibility for feasibility clearance/ sanction of extension in load shall be furnished online."
10. As per the above provision, if the nominee of the respondent/complainant namely Baljit Singh is involved in any criminal proceedings, the consumer connection should be kept in abeyance but in the present case, neither the complainant nor his nominee was involved in any criminal case because it has nowhere been proved on the file. The attorney-Baljit Singh, if involved in any electricity theft case and subsequently acquitted cannot be said to be a valid ground to keep the electricity connection in abeyance and the act of the appellants/opposite parties for not releasing the electricity connection for running the tubewell connection is totally uncalled for.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties further urged that since the appellants act in a bonafide manner by following the Rules and Regulations of the electricity authority so imposition of compensation of Rs.45,000/- by the District Commission is not justified and that should be waived off. We are in total disagreement with the contention of the learned counsel for First Appeal No 121 of 2022 9 the appellants/opposite parties because as discussed above, the connection was already issued to the respondent/complainant long time back but it was kept in abeyance unnecessarily due to which definitely the agricultural work of the respondent/complainant suffers and he might have suffered losses also due to non-irrigation of his crop and granting of this meager amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/- is justified for the agony suffered by the respondent/ complainant.
12. The District Commission while deciding the complaint has rightly observed that despite depositing of the entire amount and completion of the process of installation of the Tube-well connection, transformer was not installed since March, 2017, the date of issuing the Account No.AP50/8377.
13. Sequel to the above discussions, we do not find any infirmity and illegality in the order of the District Commission. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits and the order of the District Commission is upheld.
14. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This sum, along with interest accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The concerned party may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount to the extent of his/their entitlement and the District First Appeal No 121 of 2022 10 Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the court cases.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER May 15th,2024 parmod