PER
Charanjit Singh President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Section 34, 35 and 36 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is having other residence at Padda enclave, Chabal Bye Pass Road, Village Kazikot, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran. A colony namely Padda Enclave, approximately in 14.44 acres of land, is situated in the area of village Kazikot, District Tarn Taran and there are many residential houses/plots are situated within the colony and the above enclave has been carved out by the O.P. No.4 i.e. Dilbagh Singh s/o Jaswant Singh s/o Nand Singh. The above Dilbagh Singh has also got registered some land in his name and his family member’s favour. As such the O.P. No.4 Dilbagh Singh has carved out various plots out of the above land and started to sell the above land in the shape of residential plots. Later on as per the policy of the Government, the O.P. No.4, Dilbagh Singh has obtained regularization certificate from the concerned Government Authority i.e. PUDA in order to facilitate provisions of basic amenities to residents/plot holders of the area and has given the name to the areas as “Padda Enclave”, hereinafter to be referred as “the Enclave”. As such the enclave has been legally developed. The complainant has purchased land i.e. a plot measuring 8 Marlas 230 feet out of Khata/Khatoni No. 189/470 as per Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 situated in the area of Padda Enclave, Village Kazikot, District Tarn Taran through registered sale deed dated 18.5.2017. The complainant has constructed a residential house in the above plot. The complainant has constructed a residential house after following all necessary formalities related to colony. The complainant has applied to the PSPCL hereinafter to be called “the Corporation” for electricity connection in his residence but the corporation has lingered on the matter by giving the one or another reasons. The complainant has made several requests to the officials of the corporation by saying that the electricity is the basic necessity of life and it is very difficult for her to live without proper domestic electricity connection. The officials of the corporation have told the complainant that the above Dilbagh Singh has obtained NOC for PUDA approved colony and he has not developed LD system as per the requirement as such electricity connection has not been given to him. The complainant has told the officials that when regularization certificate bearing No.2040 dated 22.09.2014 issued by the competent Authority i.e. ADA, Amritsar for the purpose of facilitate provisions of basic amenities to residents of the area then the corporation cannot deny electricity connection to the complainant. The complainant has brought into notice of the corporation all the above facts but the officials of the corporation have not heard the genuine requests of the complainant and have not agreed to issue electricity connection to the complainant. If there exists any dispute between the corporation i.e. the O.P’s No.1 to 3 and the above Dilbagh Singh i.e. the O. P. No.4 then the corporation can take the required legal remedies as per law against the above Dilbagh Singh but the corporation cannot deny to provide the electricity connection to the complainant as the providing of electricity connection is mandatory as per the Electricity Act. The complainant is entitled to the electricity connection on the following grounds:-
- That the corporation has already installed numerous electricity connection in the Padda Enclave as such the complainant is also entitled for the electricity connection. At present the O.P. i.e. PSPCL has provided the electricity connection to the other residents of the same area i.e. to the other persons who have purchased plots within the same area.
- That the complainant has started construction work on the above plot belonging to the complainant in legal way after following all necessary formalities. The providing of the electricity connection is mandatory as per the provisions of the electricity Act.
- That neither any rule nor any manual of PSPCL warrants the levy of amount of promoter from other consumers/residents of the area. It is pertinent mention here that as per prevalent rules and regulations, the corporation is duty bound to provide the electricity connection to each individual electricity consumer and there is no law/rule prevalent due to which the corporation can deny to provide electricity connection to a residents/person.
- That the electricity is basic need of the modern era and one cannot survive without electricity. As such keeping in view all the above facts, the complainant is entitled to the domestic electricity connection on the payment of normal charges and the complainant is further obliged to comply with the other required formalities.
Providing of the electricity connection is mandatory on the part of the part of the corporation as the mandate of law. The complainant has intimated about his genuine need/basic necessity of the electricity to the concerned authorities of the P.S.P.C Ltd but none of the officials have paid any heed towards the genuine requests of the complainant as such the complainant has been mentally and physically by the officials of PSPCL ltd. On the other hand, the officials have told that either the complainant and other residents will pay the amount on behalf of Dilbagh Singh or they will never provide electricity connection if the complainant again approaches to them with the same problem. The above said act on the part of the corporation and on the part of its officials is an arbitrary act/a highly unfair trade practice as the complainant is suffering without any fault of him. As such the complainant has suffered a lot due to fault of the corporation but no official of the corporation was ready to hear the request of the complainant with regard to electricity connection. Up till now the electricity connection has not been provided to the complainant. The complainant has prayed to pass an order directing the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 i.e. corporation to provide domestic electricity connection to the complainant in the in interest of justice and also prayed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of sale deed Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of regularization certificate Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of electricity account of other residents Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of electricity account of other residents Ex. C-5, Self attested copy of electricity account of other residents Ex. C-6, Self attested copy of electricity bill Ex. C-7, Self attested copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-8, self attested copy of building Permit Sanction Ex. C-9, Self attested copy of Photograph Ex. C-10.
2 Notice of complaint issued to the opposite parties and opposite parties No. 1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that present complaint is not legally maintainable. Firstly, on the ground that till the date of filing of the present complaint by the complainant, he had never applied for release of any electricity connection as per rules detailed in clause 5.1 of electricity supply Code 2014 which clearly provides that the proceedings for release of connection are to be undertaken on receipt of an application in the application agreement (A and A) from prescribed by the distribution licensee of this purpose (clause 5.1 is attached for king perusal of this Commission as Annexure-A). Further, the A and A form has been defined in clause 2 (d) and the applicant has been defined in clause 2 (c), and copies of same are attached as annexure-B). The complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this commission and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. The complainant has caused misrepresentation and is also guilty of concealment of material and true facts. In the present complaint material and important questions of facts and law are involved which cannot be decided in a summary manner and can only be decided after recording of evidence and cross examination of witnesses of both the parties and which can only be decided by a civil court of competent jurisdiction, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The colonizer who had developed the colony was supposed to submit the complete layout plan of the electrical network proposed to be erected in the colony and other documents prescribed by the licensee along with the processing fee as per schedule of general charges and obtain the preliminary NOC form the licensee i.e. PSPCL. The NOC shall be issued by the licensee within 45 days of receipt of the proposal complete in all respects along with requisite documents. In case the developer/ builder/ society/ owners/ association of residents/ occupiers withdraws his request or fails to comply with the conditions within the stipulated time, the processing fees shall be forfeited as provided in clause 6.7 and the copy of same is attached as annexure-Z. If the colony by name of “Padda Enclave” has been created and developed by Dilbagh Singh opposite party No.4 but it is denied that any regularization certificate has been obtained from the competent authority i.e. PUDA nor any such certificate is attached with the complaint. The officials of the corporation have told the complainant that the above Dilbagh Singh has obtained NOC for PUDA approved colony and he has not developed LD system as per such the requirement as connection has not been given electricity to him. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have placed on record copy of chapter III Ex. OP 1 to 3/1, Copy of notification Ex. OP 1 to 3/2, affidavit of Harpreet Singh SDO Ex OP 1 to 3/3.
3 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party No. 4 but no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 4, consequently, the opposite party No. 4 was proceeded against exparte.
4 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and have carefully gone through the record
5 Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is having other residence at Padda enclave, Chabal Bye Pass Road, Village Kazikot, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran. A colony namely Padda Enclave, approximately in 14.44 acres of land, is situated in the area of village Kazikot, District Tarn Taran and there are many residential houses/plots are situated within the colony and the above enclave has been carved out by the O.P. No.4 i.e. Dilbagh Singh s/o Jaswant Singh s/o Nand Singh. The above Dilbagh Singh has also got registered some land in his name and his family member’s favour. As such the O.P. No.4 Dilbagh Singh has carved out various plots out of the above land and started to sell the above land in the shape of residential plots. Later on as per the policy of the Government, the O.P. No.4, Dilbagh Singh has obtained regularization certificate from the concerned Government Authority i.e. PUDA in order to facilitate provisions of basic amenities to residents/plot holders of the area and has given the name to the areas as “Padda Enclave”, hereinafter to be referred as “the Enclave”. As such the enclave has been legally developed. He further contended that on 18.5.2017, the complainant has purchased the land i.e. a plot measuring 8 Marlas 230 feet situated in the area of Padda Enclave, Village Kazikot, District Tarn Taran. The complainant has constructed a residential house in the above plot. As such the house is being constructed after following all necessary formalities related to colony. The complainant has applied to the PSPCL for electricity connection in his residence but the corporation has lingered on the matter by giving the one or another reasons. The complainant has made several requests to the officials of the corporation by saying that the electricity is the basic necessity of life and it is very difficult for her to live without proper domestic electricity connection. He further contended that the officials of the corporation have told the complainant that the above Dilbagh Singh has obtained NOC for PUDA approved colony and he has not developed LD system as per the requirement as such electricity connection has not been given to him. The complainant has told the officials that when regularization certificate bearing No.2040 dated 22.09.2014 issued by the competent Authority i.e. ADA, Amritsar for the purpose of facilitate provisions of basic amenities to residents of the area then the corporation cannot deny electricity connection to the complainant. The complainant has brought into notice of the corporation all the above facts but the officials of the corporation have not heard the genuine requests of the complainant and have not agreed to issue electricity connection to the complainant. If there exists any dispute between the corporation i.e. the O.P’s No.1 to 3 and the above Dilbagh Singh i.e. the O. P. No.4 then the corporation can take the required legal remedies as per law against the above Dilbagh Singh but the corporation cannot deny to provide the electricity connection to the complainant as the providing of electricity connection is mandatory as per the Electricity Act. He further contended that providing of the electricity connection is mandatory on the part of the part of the corporation as the mandate of law. The complainant has intimated about his genuine need/basic necessity of the electricity to the concerned authorities of the P.S.P.C Ltd but none of the officials have paid any heed towards the genuine requests of the complainant as such the complainant has been mentally and physically by the officials of PSPCL ltd. On the other hand, the officials have told that either the complainant and other residents will pay the amount on behalf of Dilbagh Singh or they will never provide electricity connection if the complainant again approaches to them with the same problem. He further contended that the above said act on the part of the corporation and on the part of its officials is an arbitrary act/a highly unfair trade practice as the complainant is suffering without any fault of him. As such the complainant has suffered a lot due to fault of the corporation but no official of the corporation was ready to hear the request of the complainant with regard to electricity connection. Up till now the electricity connection has not been provided to the complainant and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
6 On the other hands, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have placed on record that present complaint is not legally maintainable. Firstly, on the ground that till the date of filing of the present complaint by the complainant, she had never applied for release of any electricity connection as per rules detailed in clause 5.1 of electricity supply Code 2014 which clearly provides that the proceedings for release of connection are to be undertaken on receipt of an application in the application agreement (A and A) from prescribed by the distribution licensee of this purpose (clause 5.1 is attached for king perusal of this Commission as Annexure-A). Further, the A and A form has been defined in clause 2 (d) and the applicant has been defined in clause 2 (c), and copies of same are attached as annexure-B). The complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this commission and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. He further contended that the complainant has caused misrepresentation and is also guilty of concealment of material and true facts. In the present complaint material and important questions of facts and law are involved which cannot be decided in a summary manner and can only be decided after recording of evidence and cross examination of witnesses of both the parties and which can only be decided by a civil court of competent jurisdiction, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The colonizer who had developed the colony was supposed to submit the complete layout plan of the electrical network proposed to be erected in the colony and other documents prescribed by the licensee along with the processing fee as per schedule of general charges and obtain the preliminary NOC form the licensee i.e. PSPCL. The NOC shall be issued by the licensee within 45 days of receipt of the proposal complete in all respects along with requisite documents. In case the developer/ builder/ society/ owners/ association of residents/ occupiers withdraws his request or fails to comply with the conditions within the stipulated time, the processing fees shall be forfeited as provided in clause 6.7 and the copy of same is attached as annexure-Z. If the colony by name of “Padda Enclave” has been created and developed by Dilbagh Singh opposite party No.4 but it is denied that any regularization certificate has been obtained from the competent authority i.e. PUDA nor any such certificate is attached with the complaint. The officials of the corporation have told the complainant that the above Dilbagh Singh has obtained NOC for PUDA approved colony and he has not developed LD system as per such the requirement as connection has not been given electricity to her and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.
7 We have carefully gone through the rival contentions of the respected parties.
8 In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant has constructed his residential house in Padda Enclave Tarn Taran and the complainant has approached the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 for issuance of domestic connection but the opposite party has denied the same on the excuse that the colonizer who had developed the colony was supposed to submit the complete layout plan of the electrical network proposed to be erected in the colony and other documents prescribed by the licensee along with the processing fee as per schedule of general charges and obtain the preliminary NOC form the licensee i.e. PSPCL and denied to issue the domestic connection to the complainant.
9 From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case the moot question involved in this case is whether the complainant is entitled to the electricity connection which the opposite party No.1 has failed to provide to the complainant.
10 This Commission has given thoughtful consideration to the averments made by the complainant and opposite parties No.1 to 3. This Commission is of the considered view that Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation and based upon the principle to protect the rights of the consumers and this Commission have to look into the fact that where there is deficiency in service on the part of the party concerned, right of the consumer may be safe guarded and concept of entire Act is based on the principle of natural justice and equity. This Commission also relied upon the law laid down referred in the following judgments : Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. Versus Zora Singh and others Civil Appeal No.4910-4981 of 2005 has held that electricity Board is a State within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Board is expected to discharge its statutory functions within a reasonable time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further held that A ‘State’ within Article 12 of the Constitution of India must act fairly and bonafide it cannot act for a purpose which is wholly unauthorized and not germane for achieving the object it professes whether under a statute or otherwise. Similarly, Hon’ble Madras High Court in case titled as T.M.Prakash and others Versus District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai and another 2013 (4 ) CLT 829 held that accessibility to electricity was considered as right to life – Lack of electricity denies person to equal opportunities in education, suitable employment, health, sanitation and other socioeconomic right – hence amounts to violation of humanrights – Constitution mandates socio economic justice – Difficulties of women, children and aged persons living in huts without electricity was to be visualized – Hence mandatory on licence to provide electricity supply to occupants of promoboke lands on production of ‘No Objection Certificate. Petitioners entitled to seek electricity service connection – Respondents hence directed to provide electricity supply to petitioners.
11 This Commission also relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Versus Gurpiar Singh 2012(3) CPJ 217 and another judgment titled as Asstt. Engineer Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam and others Versus Bodan Ram in Revision Petition No.3008 of 2003 where similar view is taken by the Hon’ble State Commission and law cited above. So far as an order passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as M/s.Impact Projects Private Limited and another Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and other CWP 23009 of 2019 is concerned, the Hon’ble Punjab &Haryana High Court has also protected the right of the consumer and held that right of the consumer may not suffer due to negligence, cleverness and other acts of the colonizer. The relevant abstract of the judgment is reproduced particularly para 4.9 of the order as under :
“4.9 This matter can be examined from yet another perspective. If in the absence of complete infrastructure, the distribution licensee is forced to take over the incomplete local electricity distribution network, the consumer are likely to suffer.”
12 Keeping in view the law as above, this Commission is of the view that the right of the consumer should not suffer in any manner whatsoever. Since the electricity is dire need of life of anyone individual, hence, same is protected by the legislature by enforcing the present Act i.e. Consumer Protection Act.
13 The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have taken objection that the complainant is not a consumer as she had never applied for release of any electricity connection but we are not agreed with the complainant because the complainant has come under the definition of proposed consumer/ prospective consumer.
14 Moreover In support of the written version opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have tendered only one page affidavit of Sh. Haprreet Singh SDO Manochahal which does not contain the contents of the written version as such no evidentiary value can be attached to this affidavit . Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Tarlok Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Others 2004(1) CLT 127 of the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh wherein it has been held that allegation mentioned in the complaint not stated in the affidavit and then those not verified to the knowledge of the complainant- Verification held not proper and affidavit cannot be considered to be supporting the complaint.” So the written version so filed by the opposite party No.1 has no legal effect.
15 Moreover during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that two other persons / consumers of same Padda colony filed complaints before this commission against the opposite parties and in those cases interim order for issuance of domestic connection on interim basis was passed and the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 assailed the orders of this commission before the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble State Commission directed the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to issue the connections to that consumers with cost and in those cases, in the same vicinity as well as in the same colony domestic connections have been issued to that consumers. Consequently, likewise the complainant is entitled to domestic connection as they are also similarly situated.
16 In view of above discussion we allow the complaint and the complainant is directed to deposit the requisite charges i.e. security (non-energy charges ) etc. within seven days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 will release/install the permanent electricity connection (D.S) to the complainant within 15 days. However, opposite parties No.1 to 3 are at liberty to take appropriate action against the opposite party No. 4 (colonizer) as per law, if the opposite party 4 is not complying with the conditions as agreed between the parties. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3, the complainant is also entitled to 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 are directed to comply with the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realization. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
17.12.2024
