State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pseb vs Satwant Singh And Others on 14 March, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.1867 of 2010
Date of institution: 26.10.2010
Date of decision : 14.03.2012
1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Sr. Xen, City Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sunam.
3. Assistant Engineer City Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board,
Dirba.
.....Appellants
Versus
Satwant Singh s/o Sh.Harbhajan Singh r/o village Gurdarpura Basti, Sangrur,
Khewatkar of village Kohrian, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 09.09.2010
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Mr.Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.J.S.Randhawa, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.R.K.Bansal, Advocate
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 9.9.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the District Forum) vide which the complaint was allowed, the OP appellants were directed to release the tubewell electric connection to the complainant forthwith and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation.
2. According to the complainant, he had applied for a motor connection under OYT Scheme of 15 horse power under A/c No.30779 on 24.4.2008 and was directed by the OP appellants to deposit an amount of Rs.93,697/- for the said First Appeal No.1867 of 2010 2 connection. The complainant submitted the test report and deposited the said amount on 21.8.2009. His contention is that even after completing all the formalities, the connection was not granted to him, due to which, he suffered a loss of Rs.2 lacs. It was admitted that there is litigation pending in the Courts regarding the land where the electric connection is needed but his contention is that his possession over the land has been held to be legal and, therefore, he is entitled to get an electric connection thereon.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OP appellants alleging that the electric connection under OYT category can be given only to the owner of at least one acre of land but in this case, the complainant does not own any land. It was alleged that the land belongs to Samadh Baba Sujan Gir and the complainant claims to have entered into an agreement to purchase the said land from Darshan Gir who has since died and he had no right to sell the said land. It was admitted that the complainant had applied for the motor connection and a demand notice was issued to him. It was admitted that he has submitted the test report and also deposited an amount but he did not produce the latest Jamabandi of the land to prove that he owns the said land on which the electric connection is needed. The OP appellants prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint in terms as mentioned above which has been challenged by the OP appellants through this appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it is a special scheme under which the electric connection is applied for by the complainant/respondent and the Regulation in this respect would apply to the complainant under which he is required to prove that he is the owner of at least First Appeal No.1867 of 2010 3 one acre of land where the electric connection is applied for. The learned counsel argued that in case of general connections, it is true that even the occupier of the land or premises is entitled to grant of connection but in case of special schemes floated by the OP appellants, it is necessary that the complainant satisfies those conditions. The learned counsel referred to the Electricity Supply Regulations, para 13.5.2 of which reads as under : -
"13.5.2 The priority will be admissible to the person who owns land in his name except religious/charitable institutions which will be required to submit a copy of 'Fard' of the land where tube well connection is to be installed authenticating the ownership of the land."
8. It is argued by the learned counsel that the complainant does not own any land. This fact is admitted even by the complainant because he is coming to this Commission on the basis of his occupation which according to him is legal and has been upheld even by the Hon'ble High Court. However, under the priority for agricultural consumer, it is necessary in order to obtain the connection under OYT category out of turn that the complainant should own the land. The OP appellants had issued the demand notice requiring the complainant to produce evidence to prove that he is the owner of the land where the connection is needed. Admittedly, the complainant has not produced any such copy of Jamabandi to prove this fact. It is also admitted that he does not own the said land. He, therefore, does not qualify for being granted the electric connection applied for by him in this land.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to Ex.R9 which is a complaint moved by the Sarpanch and other residents of village Kohrian, District Sangrur alleging that Satwant Singh complainant wanted a motor connection in the land owned and possessed by the Dera; that the legal heirs of Darshan Gir are looking after the land of the Dera; that the entire village has First Appeal No.1867 of 2010 4 formed a Committee to manage the land of the Dera and that an outsider (i.e. Satwant Singh complainant) should not be allowed any electric connection. There is another application Ex.R10 issued by the Mahashakti Conductors Private Limited who was entrusted the work of laying the electric lines for delay in granting the electric connection. According to him, some persons had damaged the pole and other equipments and, therefore, he was unable to construct the line for laying the electric wires.
10. The case of the complainant is that he had entered into an agreement with Darshan Gir to purchase 233K-19M of land owned by the Dera. He has produced Ex.C4, a copy of the agreement. He has also referred to Ex.C8, a copy of the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sunam, vide which, the civil suit for permanent injunction filed by Samadh Baba Sujan Gir against the complainant was dismissed. The complainant had then approached the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana through a Civil Writ Petition seeking police protection to cultivate the said land. It is argued by the learned counsel that it is a case in which civil litigation is already pending and, therefore, the rights of the complainant to get the electric connection should not have been gone into by the learned District Forum.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there was no liability on the OP appellants to allow the electric connection to the complainant and, therefore, the delay in grant of connection does not make out any deficiency in service on their part.
12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that neither the complainant satisfied the conditions in getting the electric connection released in his favour nor the civil litigation justifies its release. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Forum cannot sustain. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 9.9.2010 is, accordingly, set aside. The complaint filed by First Appeal No.1867 of 2010 5 the complainant is dismissed. The complainant may approach the Civil Court for relief, if so advised. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
13. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 26.10.2010. This amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.3.2012 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.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER March 14, 2012.
Paritosh