State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pujab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs Balbir Singh on 19 January, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.585 of 2017
Date of institution : 08.08.2017
Date of decision : 19.01.2018
Punjab State Power Corporation, Bassi Kalan, Mahilpur.
....Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Shiv Ram, R/o Village Nangal Sahidan, Tehsil
and District Hoshiarpur.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
07.07.2017 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Ms. Swatantar Kapoor, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. S.S. Saini, Advocate.
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 against the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (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 First Appeal No.585 of 2017 2 parties were directed to release the AP electric connection to the complainant against application dated 18.03.2014.
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 the complainant is owner of 12 Kanals 17 Marlas of land, out of Khasra Nos. 6//16/2/1, (0-11), 16/3/1, (0-5), 25/2/4, (2-0), 13//1/1, (0-19), 26,(0-9), 14//5/3, (3-16), 20//12/2/1, (2-15), 6//25/2/3, (0-1) , 14//4/3/2, (0-4), 5/2, (0-12), 211/3, (0-3), 14//6/1/2, (1-1), 7/1/1, (0-
16), as well as owner of land measuring 3 kanals 10 Marlas out of Khewat No.18, Khatauni No.28, Khasra Nos.20//8/2 (00-16), 9(8-
0), 12/2 (4-14), 13/1 (00-15), totaling 16 Kanal 17 Marlas situated in village Nangal Sahidan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. It was averred that the only son of the complainant, namely Jatinder, died in a roadside accident, who was resident of Italy. His wife, alongwith his children, raised different types of matrimonial disputes, by moving applications in the courts and before the police. Due to that reason, the complainant was very much harassed and was feeling mentally disturbed as well. Both the daughters of the complainant are married. One of them has been living with her in laws in Tanda, District Hoshiarpur and another in foreign country. Under those circumstances, out of the said land, 12 Kanal 17 Marlas of land was transferred by the complainant in First Appeal No.585 of 2017 3 the name of his two daughters, namely Ekta Saini and Meena Kumari, vide Sale Deeds dated 08.01.2014. Thereafter, the complainant moved application dated 18.03.2014 with the opposite parties for release of AP electric connection and deposited ₹3,130/-. The opposite parties issued Demand Notice dated 13.05.2016 and the complainant deposited another sum of ₹98,482/- with opposite party No.1, vide receipt No.01 dated 24.05.2016. Thereafter, the complainant spent another sum of ₹50,000/- on construction of tubewell room, electricity fittings etc. Opposite party No.1 charged another sum of ₹7,000/-, as labour charges for erecting the electric poles and connecting the supply to the tubewell through electric wires. The opposite parties also erected poles and fitted the wires. Transformer was also supplied, which was lying at the spot in tubewell room. The complainant had been cultivating the said land, even after the transfer thereof in the names of his daughters, as his daughters were living with their in- laws. The mistake of mentioning the complainant himself as owner of land in application dated 18.03.2014 occurred on account of above said distressed family circumstances. It was further averred that the complainant again got the land transferred in his own name from both his daughters, vide Sale Deed dated 04.08.2016, and the complainant is the owner in possession of the said land, as per the revenue record. The complainant received letter bearing memo No.1531 dated 28.08.2016 from opposite party No.1, regarding not having the land in his name. He made First Appeal No.585 of 2017 4 representation to the opposite parties, explaining all the aforesaid facts therein. The said representation was received in the office of opposite party No.1, vide receipt No.3101 dated 06.09.2016. It was further pleaded that though the complainant was not owner at the time of moving application, but he was still in possession/cultivating possession thereof and thereafter he got transferred the said land in his own name. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the AP electric connection, as per application dated 18.03.2014. However, the claim of the complainant has not been considered by opposite parties. Hence, the complainant approached the District Forum, seeking following direction to the opposite parties:
i) to release AP electric connection to the complainant against the application dated 18.03.2014; and
ii) it was also prayed that any other relief, to which the complainant is found entitled to, may also be granted.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed reply to the complaint, raising certain preliminary objections that the complainant has never been the consumer of the opposite parties. He is guilty of committing the offense of cheating, by submitting a fard jamabandi for the year 2008-09, alongwith initial application for release of tubewell connection on 18.03.2014, wherein he was not shown the owner of the land shown. Actually, the complainant had transferred said land to his daughters, First Appeal No.585 of 2017 5 namely Ekta Saini and Meena Kumari, vide Mutation Nos.2095 and 2096 dated 09.01.2014. On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant was not owner of the said land at the time of submission of application dated 18.03.2014. The fard jamabandi for the year 2008-09 was bonafidely accepted by the opposite parties, by taking note of the name of Balbir Singh, complainant, in the ownership column and the mutation Nos.2095 and 2096 on the backside thereof escaped attention of the concerned official. Due to clerical bonafide mistake, the case of the complainant was registered and processed for further action. Thereafter, in routine, as per rules and regulations of the Corporation, the Demand Notice was issued to him and he deposited the required amount. Thereafter, before release of the electric connection, the opposite parties, as per rules, again obtained a copy of fard jamabandi dated 12.08.2016 and then it transpired that complainant, Balbir Singh, became the owner of the land, in question, on 08.08.2016 by mutation No.2216. Accordingly, the opposite parties got served legal notice dated 26.08.2016 upon the complainant. The said notice was never replied by the complainant and consequently, the application of the complainant was rejected, vide Office Order No.1667 dated 26.09.2016, on the ground of non-submission of any fard jamabandi, relating to his ownership of the land at the time of submission of the application. Other allegations levelled in the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
First Appeal No.585 of 2017 6Finding 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, accepted the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal. Contentions of the Parties
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case as well as the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent/complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.1 vehemently contended that on the date of submission of the application i.e. on 18.03.2014, the complainant was not owner of the land, in dispute. The complainant has also given an affidavit, making wrong averments that he is the owner of the said land. In fact, he had already transferred the said land in the names of his daughters, Ekta Saini and Meena Kumari, on 08.01.2014. It was further contended that it is the pre-condition that the only the owner of the specific land can apply for release of the electric connection therein. Thus, the complainant was not entitled to electric connection, taking his seniority of the year 2014. Since the complainant was not the owner of the land, in which he sought the connection in the year 2014, so he is not entitled to the release of the connection in priority category, in view of Regulation 13.7 (ii) of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual. Thus, he was entitled to the connection under general category and not under priority category. First Appeal No.585 of 2017 7 It was, thus, contended that the impugned order is illegal and invalid and the same is liable to be set aside, by way of accepting the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant, in addition to written arguments, vehemently contended that as per Jamabandi for the year 2008-09, Ex.C-7, the complainant was the owner of the said land. No doubt, the complainant had transferred the said land in the name of his daughters, but the same was again transferred in the name of the complainant, vide Sale Deed dated 04.08.2016, Ex.C-3; meaning thereby that the complainant remained in possession of the property, in question, although for some time ownership thereof remained in the name of his daughters. It was further contended that the complainant deposited a sum of more than ₹1,00,000/- with the opposite parties, as per their demands raised from time towards the installation of tubewell and release of electric electric connection in his fields. Now, they cannot say that the application was not properly filed and they could not reject the said application on those baseless grounds. The complainant is entitled to release of AP electric connection, as Regulation No.13.7 (iii) of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, as per which priority will be admissible upto the stage of release of connection. It was, thus, contended that the order passed by the District Forum is based on entire evidence and documents on record and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. First Appeal No.585 of 2017 8 Consideration of Contentions
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. Perusal of Instruction 13.7 (ii) of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual clearly reveals that priority will be admissible to the person, who owns land in his name or has taken Govt. land on 99 years lease except religious/charitable institutions, which will be required to submit a copy of 'Fard' (jamabandi) of the land where tube well connection is to be installed, authenticating the ownership of the land. It is admitted case of the parties that on the date of submitting the application for release of AP connection i.e. on 18.03.2014, the complainant was not owner of the land, in question, and that subsequently, he again became owner of the said land. However, it is the specific case of the complainant that he was cultivating the said land even on 18.03.2014 and he was in possession thereof, as his daughters were living with their in-laws. The fact remains that the application was not rejected at the initial stage. Along with the application, the opposite parties got deposited ₹3,130/- from the complainant, vide receipt Mark C-8. Thereafter, they issued Demand Notice to the complainant and got deposited ₹98,482/- from him, vide receipt dated 24.08.2016 Mark C-9.
11. Though, as per Instruction No.13.7 (ii) of above Instructions, the person, who applies for the AP electric connection, should be owner of the land in which the connection is First Appeal No.585 of 2017 9 sought to be installed or must have the land on lease for 99 years, however, as already mentioned above, although the land, in question, was transferred in the name of his daughters, yet he remained in possession of the same. Since subsequent to that, he again became the owner of the land, in question, on 04.08.2016, then his application should be considered from the date of acquisition of rights of the property, vide Sale Deed dated 04.08.2016, Ex.C-3. It is also relevant to mention here that the opposite parties duly admitted in their reply that fard jamabandi for the year 2008-09 was bonafidely accepted by the opposite parties, by taking note of the name of Balbir Singh, complainant, in the ownership column and the mutation Nos.2095 and 2096 on the backside thereof escaped attention of the concerned official. Due to clerical bonafide mistake, the case of the complainant was registered and processed for further action. Thereafter, in routine, as per rules and regulations of the Corporation, the Demand Notice was issued to him and he deposited the required amount.
12. Keeping in view the above admission of the opposite parties in their reply, it can be said that the complainant alone cannot be faulted, as the opposite parties were also at fault by not checking all the particulars of documents submitted with the application carefully. Had the application been rejected at the initial stage, the complainant would not have been made to incur the huge amount on purchasing/installing the infrastructure for getting released AP electric connection in the fields at his own First Appeal No.585 of 2017 10 cost. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the seniority of the complainant should be considered from 04.08.2016 and he should be released AP electric connection, as per the seniority list under "Priority Category". The fee deposited by him is to be considered as fee deposited by him for all intents and purposes. He is not required to apply afresh and after considering his application, AP electric connection should be released to him.
13. In view of our above discussion, the appeal is disposed of, with the modification in the impugned order.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
15. Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Commission, therefore, the parties through their counsel are directed to receive free certified copy of the order by hand and it is the responsibility of the learned counsel for the parties to inform them accordingly.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER January 19, 2018.
(Gurmeet S)