State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Karamjit Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ... on 3 October, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.310 of 2022
Date of Institution : 22.04.2022
Reserved on : 13.09.2023
Date of Decision :03.10.2023
Karamjit Singh son of Sh. Prem Singh, resident of House No.174,
Narotam Nagar, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.
........Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala,
through its Chairman/Secretary.
2. Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer (Urban),
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Khanna
City-1, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order
dated 21.01.2022 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Karamjit Singh, in person
For the respondents : Sh. N.S. Bhardwaj, Advocate
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes/No
2
First Appeal No.310 of 2022
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
The appellant/complainant Karamjit Singh has
approached this Commission by way of filing the present appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred as the "District Commission") in C.C. No.287 of 2020 whereby the complaint filed by him was dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the complainant applied for electricity connection under domestic category with load of 2.85 KW and had also submitted prescribed A & A Form with the OPs and also submitted all required documents including Adhaar Card, title deed of the property, etc with the OPs. The complainant had constructed two pacca rooms at the site where connection was required to be installed. However, OP No.1 vide letter No.1976 dated 20.11.2019 had informed the complainant that he was not residing at the site as per verification report submitted by the Junior Engineer of the area and thereafter explanation thereof was sought from the complainant. The complainant submitted reply to the said letter stating that no such condition was prescribed under the Rules that the complainant to be residing there for getting domestic connection. The OP had failed to install the connection. Thereafter, the complainant through his nephew contacted concerned Junior Engineer on 19.11.2019 and he had also asked him to get the temporary connection but he 3 First Appeal No.310 of 2022 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2000/-. The complainant lodged a written complaint with CMD of the OP but no action was taken. Thereafter a legal notice dated 29.07.2020 was served upon the OPs but there was no response. The complaint was filed with the prayer to issue the direction to release the domestic connection of 2.85 KW load as per policy/guidelines of PSPCL and also to pay compensation and damages of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. On issuing notice in the complaint, the OPs filed written statement on their behalf pleading therein that the complaint was not maintainable and there was no 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OPs. The other averments mentioned in the complaint were also denied. It was specifically mentioned in the reply that the domestic connection could not be provided as there was no residence in existence. The complainant was also asked to explain the position but he failed to give any reason. Further it was mentioned that the site in dispute was checked again and it was found that the complainant was having two and half bigha agriculture land with one room where submersible Pump was installed. There was no residence at the site and as such under the provisions no domestic connection could be released to the complainant and the application of the complainant was rightly declined. The other averments made in the complaint were also denied and prayer was made in the reply for dismissal of the complaint.
4First Appeal No.310 of 2022
4. On considering the averments made in the complaint, reply thereof by the OPs and on hearing the oral arguments raised from both the sides, the District Commission had dismissed the complaint vide order dated 21.01.2022. The relevant portion of the order passed by the District Commission as in para No.10 and 11 are reproduced as under:-
"10. In order to prove that a building comprising of two rooms has been constructed at the spot, no worthwhile evidence has been led by the complainant. No site plan of the constructed area has been placed on record. Even the photographs of the building of two rooms has not been placed on the record by the complainant. In the report of the J.E. dated 07.11.2019, it is mentioned that the applicant has 2½ Bigha agriculture land where one room and submer sible pump has been installed with no provisions for residence and therefore, the site does not qualify for allotment of a domestic connection. From 6 the report of the J.E., it is evident that no residential property exists at the spot. Rather the property in question primarily is an agriculture land where just one small room has been constructed along with a submersible pump. Though it has been alleged in the complaint that construction of two rooms has been raised at the spot, but no concrete evidence has been led to prove the existence of a building comprising of two rooms at the spot. In these circumstances, when no evidence has been led with any residential building comprising of two rooms exists at the spot, it cannot be said that the OPs have wrongly declined to allot a domestic connection in the land which is primarily an agriculture land of about 2½ bighas.
11. As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room."
5. The complainant thereafter being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the District Commission has filed the present appeal before this Commission by raising a number of grounds.
6. The complainant Sh. Karamjit Singh while appearing in person has submitted that the District Commission has dismissed the 5 First Appeal No.310 of 2022 complaint without considering the facts as mentioned in the complaint. He has further submitted that as per the plea of the OPs there was only one room and a Submersible pump was there at the spot. It was mentioned in the complaint that he wanted to install the domestic electric connection. The order has been passed by considering the provisions of Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 whereas no such condition was required for installation of domestic electric connection that two or more rooms are mandatory. He has also submitted that as per the provisions of the Electricity Act every distributor/licensee is required to give supply of electricity to such premises within one month after receipt of an application moved by the owner or occupier of any premises whereas the plea of OPs as raised before the District Commission was contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act. In the written version it was mentioned in the reply by the OPs that the appellant/complainant was not residing in the premises where he wanted to get the domestic connection of electricity but the OP had overlooked the definition of occupier. As per definition as provided under Section 2 (af) given in The Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, the occupier means the owner or person in occupation of the premises where energy is used or proposed to be used. The plea raised by the OPs was contrary to said provision as "specific words are mentioned used or proposed to be used"
had been used in the Electricity Act and the act on the part of the OPs was against the provisions of the Electricity Act. The appellant/complainant has further submitted that it was not the plea of 6 First Appeal No.310 of 2022 the OPs that the concerned Junior Engineer had requested the complainant to open his room to verify as to whether there was one or more rooms or whether the appellant/complainant was having house hold articles, utensils, cot, quilt, etc. for residing or not. The concerned Junior Engineer had required to share his report as per Chapter V, Section 47 of The Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and the Model Forms of Inspection Report had been scribed in Form-1 Annexure IX-A. The appellant has further submitted that the OPs had concealed the true and material facts from this Commission as well as from the District Commission whereas said Junior Engineer had recommended for issuing the temporary connection to the appellant/complainant. In case the appellant/complainant was eligible for temporary connection then reasons for not releasing the temporary connection were best known to the OPs as to why they had declined the application of the appellant/complainant on the false grounds and the stand taken in the written reply. The appellant has further submitted that the concerned Junior Engineer had given wrong report and had wasted the precious time of this Commission also as well as of the District Commission and he has prayed that exemplary cost be imposed upon the OPs. At the end, the appellant has submitted that there are two rooms at the spot but due to technical fault, or inspite of exercise of due diligence, the appellant could not place on record his rough site plan to prove the factum of two rooms i.e. one for his resident and second room where the submersible pump was running/installed. An application has also 7 First Appeal No.310 of 2022 been moved for additional evidence to place on record his rough site plan as earlier it could not be placed on record.
7. Mr. N.S. Bhardwaj Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent/OP has submitted that the District Commission has taken into consideration all the facts and averments made in the complaint and the evidence adduced there before the District Commission. He has also submitted that all documents were placed on record and by considering the factum of non production of requisite documents to prove that there was any residential building or the appellant/complainant was residing there. The complaint was rightly dismissed as the appellant/complainant had failed to prove that he was residing there. A detailed order was passed by considering the report of Junior Engineer and also the fact that the appellant was having two and half bigha agriculture land and only one room and a submersible pump was installed. There was no provision for residing at the site and as such the complainant was not entitled for any domestic connection. Moreover he had not adduced any evidence to prove the residential building/room and his claim was rightly declined.
8. We have heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondent/OP as well as the appellant/complainant and we have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission and other documents available on the file.
9. It is not in dispute that the appellant/complainant had applied for domestic connection and he is having agriculture land of 8 First Appeal No.310 of 2022 two and half bigha as has been admitted by the OP also. The District Commission has dismissed the complaint without appreciating the material facts that the complainant had already constructed a room and then he had applied for domestic connection. Simply on this ground that no building was in existence at the site, the request has been declined. For a poor person one room may be sufficient for residing. Admittedly one room was there at site as per version of OP. The building does not mean that a number of rooms are required to be constructed. Moreover the appellant/complainant has moved an application before this Commission for additional evidence wherein rough site plan has been prepared by one Ar. Kamaljit Singh, Chief Associates, Khanna whereby the appellant had constructed rooms for installation of electric domestic connection.
10. Moreover sub Section 2(af) of Section 43 of The Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 is relevant, which is reproduced as under:-
"(2)(af) : "occupier" means the owner or person in occupation of the premises where energy is used or proposed to be used;"
In view of above, it is apparent that the relevant provisions which are required to be perused for installation of domestic connection have not been appreciated by the District Commission which are necessary to be perused/considered. It appears that the appellant/complainant was not informed by the concerned Junior Engineer before going to inspection the site, so that things could have been cleared at the spot. However, it is relevant that even one room can be used for residing as no such requirement has been mentioned 9 First Appeal No.310 of 2022 in the Electricity Act that how many rooms are required for issuing domestic electricity connection. It depends on the financial status of the person who is residing or proposing to reside there. The appellant/complainant appears to be an ordinary person having a meager land of two and half bigha and for residence he might not be in a position to construct a huge building with a number of rooms.
11. The order passed by the District Commission is not based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence. The complainant had specifically pleaded in his complaint that he had already constructed two Pucca Rooms at site as per his personal requirement and had already installed electrical fittings along with Test Report but the District Commission while dismissing the complaint has not taken into consideration this fact and only considered the plea of the OPs. As such the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside the case is liable to be remanded to the District Commission.
12. M.A. No.673 of 2022 has been filed by the appellant/complainant to place on record rough site plan as additional evidence. By considering the contents of the application for additional evidence and reasons, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant/complainant to move appropriate application for additional evidence before the District Commission. Accordingly, the application is disposed off with this direction.
13. In view of the reasons as mentioned above and findings force in the arguments raised by the appellant, we allow the appeal 10 First Appeal No.310 of 2022 and the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the District Commission is set aside but by remanding the case to the District Commission with the direction to consider the contents of the complaint and evidence and also allow the appellant/complainant to file application for additional evidence and to decide the complaint in view of the observations as made above and decide the same in accordance with law by considering the facts/averments made in the complaint and the evidence available on the record or to be produced by him subsequently by way additional evidence and the District Commission is also directed to make efforts to finally decide the complaint within a period but not more than three months. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 10.11.2023.
14. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER October 03, 2023 (MM)