State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd vs Ranjit Singh on 25 July, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.239 of 2017
Date of institution : 31.03.2017
Date of decision : 25.07.2017
1.The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman.
2. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its XEN, Khanna.
3. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its XEN (Enforcement), Khanna.
4. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its SDO Bhari, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
5. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its RA Bhari, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties Versus Ranjit Singh S/o Sh. Buland Singh R/o Village Barwali Kalan, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
....Respondent/Complainant First Appeal against the order dated 06.01.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Present:-
For the appellants : Ms. Pratula Sethi, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Prajit Singh, Advocate.
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 06.01.2017 First Appeal No.239 of 2017 2 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to release the electric tubewell connection under 'Family Partition' category and to pay ₹10,000/-, as compensation for causing mental agony and ₹5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant; within a period of 45 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which they were to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the costs awarded till realization.
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 complainant is a practicing Advocate and is also carrying on the work of agriculture at his ancestral village, mentioned above. It was averred that previously, the land measuring 134K-18M was jointly owned by Sh. Ranjit Singh (complainant), Sh. Sukhdev Singh and Smt. Gurmeet Kaur; which was partitioned by way of 'Family Partition' and Mutation No.3649 was sanctioned in this regard. Thereafter, the complainant became absolute owner in possession of land measuring 42K-12M. No source of irrigation was installed in the land allotted to the complainant and, thus, he First Appeal No.239 of 2017 3 applied for release of electric motor connection of 7-1/2 BHP in his name under the "Family Partition Scheme". He submitted all the requisite documents and completed all the formalities as per the requirements/demands of the opposite parties. Previously affidavits of other family members were submitted on 16.11.2012. However, on demand of the opposite parties, the original affidavits of family members i.e. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and Sh. Sukhdev Singh were again submitted on 04.12.2012, which were duly received by Sh.Kashmira Singh, R.A. of the opposite parties. Thereafter, the opposite parties instructed the complainant to dig the bore for installation of electric motor connection and demand notice dated 21.03.2013 was issued to him. On demand of the opposite parties, the complainant deposited ₹1,600/-, vide receipt No.114 dated 20.03.2013; and ₹88,873/-, vide receipt No.102 dated 26.02.2014 with them. He further deposited ₹500/- in the account of opposite parties, vide challan dated 26.02.2014. Thus, he spent ₹2,50,000/- approximately for the installation of electric tubewell connection. Thereafter, memo No.755 dated 23.09.2015 was issued by opposite party No.4 illegally, which was adequately replied by the complainant, vide reply dated 01.10.2015; in which it was clearly stated that the objector Sukhdev Singh himself issued the affidavit in favour of complainant. Thereafter, the S.D.O, concerned Clerk and R.A. of the opposite parties, in connivance with said Sukhdev Singh son of Buland Singh, removed the affidavit dated 04.12.2012 of Sukhdev Singh, given in favour of the complainant, First Appeal No.239 of 2017 4 from the original file. Opposite party No.4 issued another memo No.849 dated 13.11.2015, demanding the original affidavit of Sukhdev Singh. The complainant sent reply, vide letter dated 01.12.2015, stating that the original affidavit was himself submitted by Sukhdev Singh to the opposite parties, alongwith the original affidavit of Gurmeet Kaur on 04.12.2012; though as per rules under "Family Partition" category, no affidavits were required as they ceased to be the co-sharers immediately after partition, according to Sales Circular No.60/07 as well as law laid down in PSPCL v. Dilbagh Singh. However, opposite party No.4 issued the letter No.390 dated 21.03.2016 in the shape of autocrat order, by ignoring all the rules of prudence and natural justice; resultantly causing harassment to the complainant, who is a senior law abiding citizen. As per instructions of the opposite parties, the bore was dug up; the pipes were installed; and the poles were erected/installed in the fields by the complainant under intimation to them. However, the opposite parties failed to release the electric tubewell connection in favour of the complainant, under "Family Partition" category, which amounted to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant did not receive memo No.187 dated 23.02.2016, as alleged in the memo No.390 dated 21.03.2016. It was further averred that the opposite parties have no right to convert the application of the complainant from "Family Partition Category" to "General Category" at the fag end, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the complainant. The officials of the First Appeal No.239 of 2017 5 opposite parties, in connivance with Sukhdev Singh, are bent upon not to release the electric connection to the complainant as well as to disconnect the tubewell connections already running in the name of the father of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant approached the District Forum, seeking the following directions to the opposite parties:
i) to release the electric tubewell connection under "Family Partition Category";
ii) to pay ₹5,00,000/- as compensation, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum; and
iii) to pay ₹1,00,000/- as damages on account of deficiency in service.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before the District Forum and filed reply to the complaint, raising preliminary objections that the complainant has no legal right or cause of action to file the complaint and he is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the same. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same is not maintainable. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed, due to non-joinder and mis- joinder of parties, as Sh. Sukhdev Singh and Smt. Gurmeet Kaur have not been impleaded, who are necessary parties. On merits, it was pleaded that as per record of the PSPCL, Sub Division Bhari, on 20.03.2013 the complainant applied for electric motor First Appeal No.239 of 2017 6 connection for agriculture purpose under "Special Category" and for load of 7.5 BHP, vide A & A form No.30702/AP and deposited the security of ₹1,600/-, vide BA 16 No.114/97 dated 20.03.2013. Along with the said A & A form, he also submitted Jamabandi, ID proofs, own affidavit and affidavits of Sukhdev Singh and Gurmeet Kaur. The complainant disclosed in his affidavit that ancestral land was divided among the brothers and the electric motors connections in the name of his father, Buland Singh, fell to the shares of Darshan Singh and Sukhdev Singh, who are brothers of the complainant and the complainant has no source of irrigation. The estimate regarding the electric motor connection was passed, vide office order No.4225 dated 22.04.2013, and the complainant deposited ₹76,615/-, as per that estimate. As per the instruction of the Corporation, the installation order No.510/019 dated 25.02.2014 was issued by opposite party No.4. Meanwhile the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi passed status quo order for release of agriculture connection in the state of Punjab. The PSPCL had issued policy for release of AP connection, vide circular No.44/2015 dated 16.12.2015, after the final order was passed by the said Tribunal regarding release of connection. In the meantime, Sukhdev Singh, brother of the complainant, filed a complaint to Chairman, PSPCL, regarding the fact that his brother Ranjit Singh had applied for new motor connection under "Family Partition" by representing wrong facts, as the complainant was having 1/3rd share in the electric motor connection No.S-191 and First Appeal No.239 of 2017 7 ½ share in electric motor connection No.S-430. He also mentioned in the complaint that the complainant filed false affidavit, as he did not give any consent to Ranjit Singh to take new motor connection on the basis of family partition. It was further averred that opposite party No.4 issued letter bearing Memo No.755 dated 23.09.2015 regarding complaint of Sukhdev Singh, who objected to the release of motor connection. Opposite party No.4 also issued Memo No.849 dated 13.11.2015 to the complainant regarding difference of affidavit and for submission of original affidavits. The opposite parties further issued letters dated 23.02.2016 to Ranjit Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Gurmeet Kaur regarding change of name of the electric motor connections running in the name of Buland Singh. Reminders were also issued as per the rules, regulations and procedure of the opposite parties, but they neither replied to the letters and reminders nor they informed the opposite parties regarding death of Buland Singh. After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the complainant, it was revealed that the complainant misrepresented the facts, concealed the true and material facts and misguided the employees of the opposite parties by submitting false affidavit dated 25.09.2012. The complainant also admitted in statement during inquiry that the land, where he sought new electric motor connection, is not the agriculture land, which came to his share in Family Partition. It was further pleaded that the complainant is already a shareholder in two electric motor connections and there is no question to give First Appeal No.239 of 2017 8 new motor connection to him under Family Partition. Vide memo No.138 dated 17.06.2016, Additional S.E./Enforcement, PSPCL, Khanna observed in the inquiry that the connection of the complainant does not come under the new motor connection of 'Family Partition Scheme' and it was recommended that no motor connection would be given to the complainant under Family Partition Scheme and the application of the complainant was treated in General Category. It was denied that the complainant completed all the formalities, as per the instructions of the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other allegations, contained in the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs.
Finding of the District Forum
5. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal. Contentions of the Parties
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties vehemently contended that the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the estimate was passed by the opposite parties and the installation order dated 25.02.2014 was also issued, but in the First Appeal No.239 of 2017 9 meanwhile, Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi passed status quo order for release of agriculture connection in the State of Punjab. After passing the final order by the said Tribunal, the opposite parties issued a policy for release of AP connections, vide Circular No.44/2015 dated 16.12.2015, regarding the release of new motor connections. However, in the meantime, Sh. Sukhdev Singh filed a complaint to the PSPCL regarding misrepresentation of facts by the complainant in the application form for release of new connection. They also issued letters and reminders to the complainant; Sukhdev Singh; and Gurmeet Kaur regarding change of name of electric motor connections running in the name of Sh. Buland Singh, but no reply was received. It was further contended that the complainant is already a shareholder in two electric connections, which are in the name of his father Buland Singh and, thus, there is no question of release new connection in his favour under Family Partition Scheme. Still further, as per inquiry report, the connection of the complainant does not come under new motor connection under 'Family Partition Scheme' and, as such, the complainant is not entitled to the release of new connection under that scheme. The District Forum lost sight of all these facts and wrongly allowed the complaint. The impugned order is illegal and wrong and the same is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has vehemently contended that the First Appeal No.239 of 2017 10 District Forum has passed the impugned order, after properly appreciating the entire evidence produced by the parties on the record before it. After family partition, the complainant became absolute owner in possession of land measuring 43K-12M, as per Partition Certificate Ex.C-3 and he is entitled to new electric motor connection for irrigation purposes. The complainant completed all the requisite formalities and deposited the requisite amount for release of the connection, but the opposite parties, in connivance with Sukhdev Singh, illegally denied the same on false and vague grounds. It was further contended that that as per clause 13.8 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, Ex.C-20, Sub Clause-x Family Partition/Division of Land, the priority for release of one tubewell connection to each legal heir is admissible in case of division of landed property as a result of family partition under the provision of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 or as a result of inheritance. The refusal of the opposite parties to release the new motor connection in favour of the complainant amounted to deficiency in service, which caused great mental tension and harassment to him. The complaint has been rightly allowed by the District Forum and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions
9. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. Admittedly, the partition of land had already been effected between the family members, including the complainant, First Appeal No.239 of 2017 11 as is evident from copy of mutation Ex.C-1 and jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 Ex.C-2. Regarding the partition of land, Certificate Ex.C-3 was duly issued by the Tehsildar, Khamanon, in which the shares of the parties have been specifically defined. The relevant joint share has also been shown in jamabandi Ex.C-2. After the partition, the complainant became absolute owner of land measuring 42K-12M. The complainant applied for release of new electric tubewell connection in the said land and completed the requisite formalities. Along with the application form, the complainant also submitted the affidavits of Sukhdev Singh, Gurmeet Kaur Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 and Mark-A. Thereafter, demand notice Ex.C-7 was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant as well as estimate was passed, vide office order dated 22.04.2013, and verification report Ex.C-8 was also issued. The complainant duly deposited ₹1,600/- and ₹88,873/-with the opposite parties, vide receipts Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-13, as per their instructions. The installation order dated 25.02.2014 by opposite party No.4. The co-shares also submitted their "No Objections" for releasing the new connection in favour of the complainant, as per their above said affidavits. However, the opposite parties wrongly and illegally denied the release of the new electric tubewell connection in favour of the complainant on baseless grounds. The issuance of demand notice, verification report and estimate itself shows that there was no doubt in the mind of the opposite parties for releasing the connection in favour of the complainant. Merely First Appeal No.239 of 2017 12 on the basis of complaint filed by Sukhdev Singh and some finding in the inquiry report, it cannot be held that the connection applied by the complainant does not falls under Family Partition Category and it falls under General Category. The partition of the family land has been abundantly proved by the cogent and convincing evidence produced by the complainant, as discussed above.
11. Identical issue has been dealt in detail by this Commission in case Punjab State Corporation Limited and Others v. Dilbagh Singh 2012 (2) CLT 287. The observation given in the above authority, concerning Commercial Circular No.60 of 2007, has already been reproduced by the District Forum in the impugned order. In Paras No.20 and 21 of the said judgment, it was held as under:
"20. From the above circular of the appellants, it is clear that each legal heir is entitled for the release of tubewell connection and the appellants have to release one tubewell connection to each legal heir under genuine family partition/division of landed property as a result of family partition under Land Revenue Act, 1887 or as a result of inheritance.
21. There is no dispute that the respondent is a legal heir i.e. son of deceased Hardial Singh, who had applied for tubewell connection to the appellants and as per the above circular he is entitled for the release of tubewell connection as a legal heir of the applicant ......"First Appeal No.239 of 2017 13
12. The District Forum also correctly relied upon the law laid down in case Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Kashmir Singh II (2003) CPJ 292 and Punjab State Electricity Board v. Banta Singh 2003 (2) CPC 112 and correctly allowed the complaint, directing the opposite parties to release the electric connection as well as to pay the compensation and litigation costs. There order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
13. In view of my above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.
14. The appellants had deposited a sum of ₹7,500/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT July 25, 2017.
(Gurmeet S)