| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.501 of 04-10-2016 Decided on 06-06-2017 Karamjit Kaur aged about 52 years W/o Harminder Singh R/o Village Chak Bakhtu, Tehsil and District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala. 2.Senior Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Distribution Division, Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Sohan Singh, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.Ashok Bharti, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Karamjit Kaur (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she has small farm of about 2.5 acre area in the village area. She relies on the land for family needs. Except this land, there is no other source of income and her entire family dependent on the income from this farm. There was scarcity of water for irrigation. Due to its shortage, the yield out most of crops is limited and have to arrange the water. It is alleged that in order to fulfill her needs, the complainant has applied for the tubewell connection of 10 BHP motor load and deposited Rs.2000/- as initial fee vide receipt dated 3.3.2014. She also submitted the application and agreement form. Opposite parties introduced the policy for issuing of tubewell connections through commercial circular No.44/2015 on 16.12.2015. There was also scheme to deliver the tubewell connection to those applicants, who have land from 1 acre to 2.5 acres and who are ready to borne the full cost of material. The complainant opted the scheme within the time period i.e. submitted option application on 18.4.2016. Accepting her option, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution Sub Division, has issued the demand notice No.1232 dated 6.6.2016 against her application No.23281 dated 3.3.2014. The complainant was asked to deposit Rs.1,07,190/- and to submit the test report and complete the other formalities. The department issued the installation order dated 10.6.2016 for installation/erection of material at site and installed the same, but except the transformer. It is further alleged that despite all the material has been brought and installed at the spot except the transformer, opposite parties are not giving the tubewell connection of the complainant on one or other pretext. She is suffering huge loss due to paucity of water for her paddy crops. It is also alleged that there is time limit for release of new connection under regulation 8 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007. As per regulation 8 (b), erection of transformer from LT supply is 45 days and from high voltage (11000 watts) is 60 days. As per regulation 8.6, if a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in regulation, it shall be liable to pay the penalty, which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default. As per regulation 26, in the event to meet the standard of performance specified in Annexure-1, the distribution shall be liable to pay compensation as per Annexure-5, which is Rs.200/- per day. It is further alleged that the complainant has completed all the formalities, but opposite parties have failed to perform their official duty. It amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant is entitled to get the tubewell connection released immediately and Rs.1000/- as penalty for each day and Rs.200/- per day as compensation in addition to cost of litigation. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing the joint written version. In the written version, opposite parties have raised the legal objections that the complainant has no cause-of-action or locus-standi to file this complaint. She is not 'consumer' as defined under 'Act'. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. The complaint is not maintainable. It is time barred. The complainant is estopped from filing of this complaint by her own act and conduct. She has not come with clean hands to seek the relief and she has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. As per opposite parties, the complainant applied for the tubewell connection under the scheme for providing the motor connection and tubewell connection to the small farmers i.e. under the scheme circulated vide circular dated 16.12.2015. Under this scheme, the motor connections and tubewell connections are being released to the applicants and small land owners as per procedure and instructions of PSPCL issued from time to time. No discrimination has been made by opposite parties. Last legal objection is that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. It is liable to be dismissed with special cost. On merits, opposite parties have controverted all the material averments. However, issuance of demand notice and deposit of Rs.1,07,190/- by the complainant is stated to be matter of record and not denied. It is admitted that the material has been brought at the spot. It is further mentioned that the tubewell connection is being released to the farmers turn by turn and as per PSPCL rules, guidelines and circulars. In the end, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of her claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopies of receipts, (Ex.C1 and Ex,.C3); photocopy of estimate, (Ex.C2); photocopy of SCO, (Ex.C4); her affidavit dated 2.2.2017, (Ex.C5) and submitted written arguments. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Shamsher Singh dated 15.4.2017, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of SCO, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopies of order, (Ex.OP1/3); photocopies of letters, (Ex.OP1/4 and Ex.OP1/5) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the complainant applied for electricity tubewell connection and deposited an amount of Rs.1,07,190/- as demanded by opposite parties. As per regulation 8 (b), the connection was to be released within 45 days, but opposite parties have failed to release the connection within 45 days. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that although, after filing of this complaint, opposite parties have released the connection on 29.11.2016. Of-course, in affidavit, (Ex.OP1/1) Shemsher Singh has deposed that the connection has been released on 21.10.2016, but there is no record to prove this fact. The signatures of the consumer were to be obtained at the time of releasing of tubewell connection, but signatures of the complainant are not obtained. This fact stands proved from SCO and order, (Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3). Opposite parties have failed to release the tubewell connection as per regulation 8 (b). Therefore, they are liable to pay the penalty @ Rs.1000/- per day and compensation @Rs.200/- per day. The complainant has suffered for paddy crops due to delay on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, she is also entitled to special damages. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complaint of the complainant has already become infructuous. The tubewell connection has already been released on 21.10.2016. The complaint was filed on 4.10.2016. As per regulation 8 (b), this connection is to be released within the prescribed period where there is no requirement of erecting and commissioning of power transformer, but in this case, as per complainant herself, the transformer was also to be installed. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that the complainant has not alleged any negligence on the part of opposite parties. It is also not the case of the complainant that subsequent applicants have been released the tubewell connections earlier to her. Unless and until any negligence is alleged and proved, opposite parties cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. The main prayer of the complainant is directions to opposite parties to release the tubewell connection. It is not disputed that after filing of this complaint, the tubewell connection has been released. Although, as per complainant, the tubewell connection has been released on 29.11.2016 and as per opposite parties, the tubewell connection has been released on 21.11.2016. Now, claim of the complainant is only regarding compensation. She has supported her claim for compensation on the ground that opposite parties were required to release the tubewell connection within 45 days, but this period is applicable only when the commissioning of power transformer is not required. As per complainant herself, opposite parties were also to install the transformer. Moreover in order to claim compensation, the complainant was required to prove any negligence on the part of opposite parties. It is not the case of the complainant that subsequent applicants have been released the tubewell connections prior to release of her tubewell connection. Moreover the complainant has also failed to prove any loss for this delay in releasing of tubewell connection. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 06-06-2017 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
