State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... vs Ajaib Singh Bhullar Alias Ajaib Singh ... on 10 September, 2013
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 830 of 2012
Date of institution: 18.06.2012
Date of decision : 10.9.2013
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Addl. S.E.
(Op), PSPCL, Bhagta Bhai Ka, District Bathinda.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Sub
Divisional Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Nathana
District Bathinda.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its
MD/CMD/Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
.....Appellants
Versus
Ajaib Singh Bhullar alias Ajaib Singh S/o Sh. Mangal Singh resident of
village Khemuana, District Bathinda now resident of 15, Monabelbe
Crescent Brampton, Ontario Canada L6PIWS through Power of
Attorney Rajinder Singh Bhullar alias Rajinder Singh S/o Nachhatar
Singh Bhullar alias Nachhatar Singh, Resident of Village Khemuana,
Tehsil and District Bathinda.
.........Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
20.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Before:-
Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Member Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. B.S. Taunque, Advocate
For the respondent: Sh. Rajinder Singh, Representative
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the appellants/O.Ps (hereinafter called "appellant") under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 First Appeal No.830 of 2012 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order dated 20.04.2012 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short the "District Forum") vide which the complaint of the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called "respondent") was accepted.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent applied for tubewell connection of 7.5 BHP under OYT scheme of the appellants vide application No. OYT-1087 dated 17.04.2008 and deposited the registration fee Rs. 25,000/- + Security fee with the appellants. On 01.06.2009 demand notice vide memo No. 1089 was issued by the appellants to the respondent vide which a demand of Rs. 87,308/- was raised as per estimate which was prepared from 11 kv line which leads to the tubewell connection of one Bhag Singh. The appellants again issued a revised demand notice vide memo No. 1945 dated 13.07.2009 vide which a demand of Rs. 69,514/- was raised. The respondent had deposited the same with the appellant No. 2 on 15.09.2009 vide receipt No. 550 E 10297. The appellants erected/installed a pole on the land of the respondent and installed the material on the pole to install the transformer. Only work of laying down of wire from 11 kv line was pending since May 2010 as the other consumers of the appellants had forcibly and illegally stopped the appellants from laying wire from 11 kv line which leads to the connection of Bhag Singh. The appellants sought police protection from the police which was provided by Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda vide letter No. 852-54-Peshi dated 10.06.2010 and SSP letter No. 17547-52 dated 18.06.2010 but the appellants did not take the police protection for the release of the tubewell connection of the respondent. The appellants issued a memo No. 502 dated 01.06.2011 vide which a demand of Rs. 33601/- was raised on the basis of complaint No. 429 of 17.09.2010 decided on 20.01.2011 by the District Forum titled as Bhag Singh Vs. PSPCL. The order was not passed against the respondent but the same First Appeal No.830 of 2012 3 was passed against the appellants. The respondent did not deposit Rs. 33,601/- with the appellant as such his application for release of tubewell connection was rejected/cancelled. The respondent further alleged that the tubewell connection was released to Bhag Singh after disturbing the seniority list as the respondent had applied and deposited the requisite fee for release of tubewell connection on 17.04.2008 whereas Bhag Singh had applied on 21.04.2008 i.e. after the respondent. The complaint was filed by the respondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants with the prayer that the appellants may be directed to release the tubewell connection as per the revised sketch/estimate and to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as damages suffered by the respondent and Rs. 90,000/- as compensation due to mental tension and agony. It was further prayed that the appellants may be directed to withdraw letter No. 502 dated 01.06.2011 and memo No. 2335 dated 15.11.2011. The appellants may also be directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellants taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable in the present form, the respondent had no cause of action, not approached the District Forum with clean hands, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint, the complaint was false and frivolous, the consumer does not fall under definition of 'Consumer' and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
4. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent had applied for the tubewell connection under OYT scheme and deposited the requisite fee with the appellants. The appellants with all bonafidies intended to release the tubewell connection to the respondent but there were hindrances from the persons whose land was adjoining with the land of the respondent and the line was to be erected/drawn through the land of said persons. The appellants had made all the possible efforts to release the First Appeal No.830 of 2012 4 tubewell connection to the respondent even the police help was sought but could not release the tubewell connection to the respondent. One Bhag Singh filed a complaint No. 429 in the District Forum alleging that as the tubewell connection was to be released from the 11 kv line which was erected/drawn by said Bhag Singh by his own expenses as such he is entitled for the 50% of the expenses from the respondent which were spent by him to erect the 11 kv line. The complaint was contested by the respondents but the complaint was accepted by the District Forum vide order dated 20.01.2012 with the direction that if the tubewell connection is released from the 11 kv line in question, the same could be released only after payment of 50% of the cost of the line to Bhag Singh. The appellants made a demand of Rs. 33601/- i.e. 50% from the respondent for the payment to said Bhag Singh as per the order of the District Forum. The respondent did not deposit Rs. 33,601/- with the appellant, as such the application of the respondent for the release of the tubewell connection was rightly cancelled/rejected. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
5. The learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence and documents on record, accepted the complainant and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as costs and compensation and demand of Rs. 33,601/- through demand notice No. 502 dated 01.06.2011 was quashed. The appellants were directed to release the connection to the respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
6. Aggrieved from the order of the learned District Forum, the appellants have filed the present appeal on the grounds that the appellants had made best efforts to release the tubewell connection to the respondent but the connection could not be released due to obstruction by Bhag Singh from whose 11 kv line, the tubewell connection was to be released to the respondent. The tubewell connection was to be released by the First Appeal No.830 of 2012 5 Additional, SE, APDRP, construction division and not by the appellant, who was directed to release the tubewell connection to the respondent. Additional SE, APDRP was the necessary party but he was not pleaded as party by the respondent. The District Forum also awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation when the respondent had prayed for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- only, as such the order of the District Forum is liable to be set- aside.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties.
8. There are admitted facts between the parties that the respondent had applied for the release of the connection under OYT scheme and deposited the requisite fee alongwith application with the appellants. It is also admitted fact between the parties that the revised estimate as well as sketch was prepared by the appellants. The appellants issued revised demand notice No. 1945 dated 13.07.2009 to the respondent vide which a demand of Rs. 69,514/- was made. The respondent had deposited the same vide receipt No. 550-E-10297 on 15.09.2009 and complied with the demand notice. It is also admitted fact that the appellants had erected/installed a pole on the land of the respondent and material was also installed on the pole for the installation of the transformer. Only work of laying down of wire from 11 kv line was pending since 2010.
9. The version of the appellants is that one Bhag Singh had obstructed to lay the wire from the 11 kv line which was drawn by him by his own expenses. The appellants had made a request to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda for the police help for the release of the tubewell connection to the respondent. The Deputy Commissioner had ordered the SSP, Bathinda to provide the police help to the appellants vide his letter First Appeal No.830 of 2012 6 Ex. C-26 bearing No. 1798 dated 23.11.2010 and Naib Tehsildar, Bathinda was appointed as Duty Magistrate. The SSP, Bathinda vide order Ex. C- 27 directed the SHO, Police Station, Nahian Wala to provide police help to the appellants in the presence of Duty Magistrate for the release of the connection to the respondent. But the appellants did not take the police help for the reasons best known to the appellants. The complaint was filed by Bhag Singh on 17.09.2010 after the police help was ordered to be provided to the appellants in the month of June, 2010, which shows that the version of the appellants that they were intended to release the connection to the respondent bonafidely is not correct.
10. We have perused the circular No. 44 of 2007 which relates to release of tubewell connection under the OYT scheme. As per the said circular, once a connection was released to the consumer, the Board shall carry out the routine maintenance of 11 kv line, of course within two years with the material for replacement being supplied by the consumer. Two or more applicants can share the cost of common kv line. During this period of two years from the release of the connection, the consumer shall be responsible for replacement of entire damaged material, however it will be the responsibility of the consumer to replace the transformer as and when the same was damaged being his own property.
11. From the above circular, after the period of two year of maintenance of 11 kv line the same become the property of the appellants and the appellants were competent to release connection to the applicants without depositing 50% of cost of the 11 kv line. The tubewell connection was released to Bhag Singh on 17.07.2009 and the period of two years of maintenance of the same was ended on 16.07.2011. The appellants had not released the tubewell connection to the respondent even after two years when the appellants had become the owner of the said kv line. The complaint was filed by the respondent on 19.01.2012 i.e. First Appeal No.830 of 2012 7 after passing of two years from the release of tubewell connection to said Bhag Singh.
12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion, that the appellant had intentionally harassed the respondent. The order of the District Forum is speaking one. There is no infirmity in the same as such the order of the District Forum is affirmed. There is no merit in the appeal of the appellant as such the same is dismissed.
13. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 18.06.2012. This amount of Rs. 10,000/- alonwith interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the respondent by way of crossed cheque/bank draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum. The remaining amount will be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 06.09.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. 15 The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member September 10, 2013.
RK First Appeal No.830 of 2012 8 First Appeal No.830 of 2012 9