DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 160 of 20.4.2016

                                      Decided on:         10.2.2021

Roshan Lal S/o Sh.Lachhman Dass R/o VPO Kulwanoo, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala.
2. SDO, PSPCL Rural, Patran, District Patiala.
3. Assistant Engineer, PSPCL, Rural, Patran, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.N.S.Saifdipur, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal, counsel for OPs.                     

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Roshan Lal   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he has taken electricity drip connection vide a/c No.YAL-2362 in the month of January, 2016 for the purpose of growing the vegetables in his fields, far away from his village and sometimes the complainant had to wrap the plastic pipes which are used for dripping to plough the water to the fields. It is averred that on 4.6.2016, the SDO Sub Division Patran alongwith some officials of PSPCL visited the fields and lateron issued notice dated 5.4.2016 for an amount of Rs.55,713/- as penalty to be deposited within 7 days, for unauthorized use of electricity, which the complainant has never used. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the complaint by giving directions to the OPs to withdraw the notice dated 5.4.2016 and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @18% per annum and also to pay Rs.12000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that the complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum as the notice No.643 dated 5.4.2016 was sent to the complainant under Section 126 of Electricity Act on account of theft/unauthorized use of electricity and the jurisdiction  of this Forum is barred where a case relates to theft/unauthorized use of electricity, vide  order dated 10.7.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in petition(s) for special leave to appeal (Civil) No.5466 of 2012 arising out of SLP ( c ) No.35906 of 2011 UP Power Corporation Limited & others Vs. Anis Ahmed, as such this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the complainant has not filed any objections to the aforesaid memo/notice .
4. On merits, releasing of connection in question to the complainant is admitted. It is submitted that checking of the connection of the complainant was conducted on 4.4.2016 by Sh.Sucha Singh, SDO PSPCL, Sub-urban sub Division, Patran, Patiala alongwith Gurmeet Singh JE and other officials and it was found by the checking team that the delivery pipe of the tubewell was separated from the pipe of drip irrigation and the complainant was irrigating his fields by fixing a flexible plastic pipe on the delivery pipe directly without the drip pipes and fountains. Hence this is unauthorized use of drip irrigation connection. It is further submitted that the said checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant who put his thumb mark on the checking report and thereafter notice in question was sent to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying all other allegations the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA, affidavit of Jaskaran Singh  Sarpanch, Ex.CB, affidavit of Jiwan Kumar, Photographer, Ex.CC alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C11 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of SDO Nek Chand, Ex.OPB affidavit of SDO Sucha Singh, Ex.OPC affidavit of JE Gurmeet Singh alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.  
8. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is  consumer of OPs and he has taken Electricity Drip Connection vide a/c No.YAL-2362 in the month of January/2016 for the purpose of growing vegetables. The ld. counsel further argued that the fields of complainant are far away from his village and some time for sowing  of the seed of vegetables during rainy season, the complainant has to wrap the plastic pipes which are used for dripping .The ld. counsel further argued that on 4.6.2016, SDO Sub Division, Patran visited the fields and issued notice of unauthorized electric connection and he demanded Rs.55,713/- as penalty. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant never committed any wrong dripping, so complaint be allowed.
9. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs as argued that on checking the electricity connection on 4.4.2016 by SDO, PSPCL, Patran  alongwith other officials has found that delivery pipe of the tubewell was separated from the pipe of drip irrigation  and the complainant was irrigating his fields by fixing a flexible plastic pipe. The ld. counsel further argued that pipe and fountain of drip irrigation were found separated from the delivery pipe and he was unauthorizedly using this connection which was specifically given to him for drip cultivation. The ld.counsel further argued that the complainant has also put his thumb mark on the checking report and now he is estopped by his own act and conduct , so the complaint be dismissed.
10. To prove this case, complainant Roshan Lal has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint. Complainant has also examined affidavit of Jaskaran Singh, Sarpanch and he  has supported the case of the complainant. The complainant has also tendered affidavit Ex.CC of Jiwan Kumar, photographer and he has proved the photographs, Exs.C1 to C9, Ex.C10 is the notice issued by PSPCL to Sh.Roshan Lal directing him to pay Rs.55713/-
11. On the other hand Sh.Nek Chand, SDO has tendered  his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written reply. SDO Such Singh who has visited the spot has proved the case vide his affidavit, Ex.OPB. Gurmeet Singh JE has also tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPC and he has proved the report Ex.OP1.
12. Admittedly in this case, the complainant has taken Electricity Drip Connection vide a/c No.YAL-2362 in the month of January/2016 for the purpose of growing vegetables in his fields. On 4.6.2016 the SDO PSPCL Sub Urban Sub Division, Patran alongwith other staff, visited the fields of the complainant and complainant was found to have been using the water to irrigate his fields directly and not from drip connection and this fact has been admitted by the complainant in his complaint.
13. Ex.OP1 is the report when the checking was held and this report is bearing thumb impression of Sh.Roshan Lal and it is clearly mentioned, removed drip pipe and he was not using this electric connection for drip irrigation. Ex.OP2 is the notice sent to Roshal Lal directing him to deposit Rs.55713/- for using unauthorized electric connection. Ex.OP3 is the final assessment report directing the complainant to deposit Rs.55713/-.
14. So from the report prepared at the spot which is duly thumb marked by Roshan Lal and signed by officials, it is clear that Roshal Lal has removed delivery pipe which is used for drip irrigation and he was using the same for his other fields, so he has clearly violated the conditions of this drip connection and accordingly a penalty of Rs.55713/- was imposed upon him.
15. So due to our above discussion the complainant is defaulter in this case as he himself was using the water from said electric connection which was given to him for only Drip Connection for his other fields, as such he cannot claim any relief from PSPCL.
16. So due to our above discussion, there is no force in the complaint and the same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
108605146108.  
108605146109.  

                                                Y.S.Matta              Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                    Member                      President