DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 60 of 03-03-2017

Decided on : 08-03-2018

Sukhwant Singh aged about 43 years S/o Satwant Singh R/o Village Dialpura Mirza, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, DS Sub Division, PSPCL, Bhai Rupa, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.

   1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. .......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. V K Kaushal, Advocate.

For the opposite parties : Sh. J D Nayyar, Advocate.

O R D E R

M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

1. Sukhwant Singh, complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties').

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that electric tube well connection bearing A/c No. SB-657 of 15 BHP is running in the land of the complainant for irrigation of his about 10 acres of land. The power to this connection is being supplied from 63 KVA Transformer named 'Paramjit Singh Wala Transformer'.

3. It is alleged that on 27-11-2016, complainant visited his land and found that the transformer's oil was leaked. It shows that the oil of the transformer was stolen by some mischievous elements. The complainant immediately gave intimation to opposite party No. 2 and SHO, Police Station, Phul. General Diary was recorded on 28-11-2016.

4. It is also the case of the complainant that due to theft of oil from Transformer, the Transformer failed to supply electricity to his tube well connection alongwith connections of other consumers, to whom supply was being given from this Transformer. Since 27-11-2016, supply was not restored because the transformer remained damaged and was not replaced with new one. Whenever complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 2 with the request to restore the supply of his tube well connection, it was assured by opposite party No. 2 that the supply will be restored shortly after completing departmental formalities, but the supply has not yet been restored. The complainant is suffering badly due to non-availability of electricity as irrigation of about 10 acres of land suffered badly. There is total loss to the crops of the complainant amounting to Rs. 3.00 Lacs, for which he is entitled from the opposite parties.

5. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has pleaded that he has suffered mental tension, harassment and mental agony for which he has claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- from the opposite parties in addition to Rs. 10, 000/- as litigation expenses and direction to the opposite parties to replace the transformer and restore the electricity supply.

6. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in its present form. That the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint. That the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. He has suppressed material facts from this Forum. That the complainant has filed this false and fictitious complaint. Complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs. That the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. That the complainant is not consumer as defined under the 'Act'.

7. As per opposite parties, true facts are that the complainant reported that the oil of his transformer had been stolen on 26-11-2016. Immediately taking action upon his complaint, the opposite party No. 2 referred the matter to the concerned SHO vide letter No. 2897 dated 28-11-2016 for recording FIR. The said letter was received by Munshi of the police station and FIR No. 11 dated 28-11-2016 had been recorded. The FIR recorded was not found to be correct. Thereafter the complainant approached the police authorities for getting the FIR recorded by moving an application dated 09-02-2017. The opposite party No. 2 wrote letter No. 155 dated 09-02-2017, on the basis of which FIR No. 16 dated 09-02-2017 was registered. Since the procedure was to start after getting FIR recorded, as such the concerned JE prepared the estimate and sent it to Division Bhagta who passed the same. After passing of the estimate, the SJO was issued for withdrawing the oil from the store on 17-02-2017. The estimate number was 630 2030/16-17. On 20-02-2017, the concerned JE vide SR No. 31/355 dated 20-02-2017 approached the store for withdrawing the oil but it was informed by the store authorities that the oil was not available in the store. As such, the said SR was returned to the JE. Thereafter on 26-2-2017 the store officials recommended to get oil from store at Amritsar which was accordingly brought from the store at Amritsar and handed over to the store at Bathinda. The concerned JE on 27-02-2017 vide SR No. 32/335 dated 27-02-2013 withdrew the oil from the store and on the same day it was supplied to the complainant. The complainant started consuming electricity from the transformer accordingly. All these facts would go to prove that the opposite parties with all the bonafides, had been performing their duties and there has been no negligence on their part. The oil was supplied as soon as the same had been received after getting the necessary formalities completed. Hence the present complaint deserves dismissal.

8. On merits, the fact regarding electric tube well connection in the name of complainant is stated to be matter of record. It is admitted that intimation had been received from complainant regarding theft of oil from his transformer. The registration of the matter before the police authorities is also state to be matter of record. All other averments of the complainant are denied. The opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of letters (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), photocopy of General Diary detail (Ex. C-3) and his affidavit (Ex. C-4).

10. In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit dated 17-8-2017 of Parveen Kumar (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of letters (Ex. OP-1/2 & Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of General Diary Detail (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-1/5 & Ex. OP-1/6), photocopy of general diary detail (Ex. OP-1/7), photocopy of Form No. SOP 4 (Ex. OP-1/8), photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-1/9), photocopy of writings (Ex. OP-1/10 & Ex. OP-1/11), photocopy of material details (Ex. OP-1/12), photocopy of store requisition form (Ex. OP-1/13), photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-1/14) and photocopy of store requisition form (Ex. OP-1/15).

11. The complainant has also submitted written arguments.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and written arguments of complainant.

13. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that material facts are admitted by the opposite parties. It is not denied that complainant is holding electric tube well. It is not denied that complainant was getting electricity supply from transformer in question. It is also not denied that complainant intimated the opposite parties regarding theft of oil from concerned transformer. The matter was reported to the opposite parties 28-11-2016. As per opposite parties themselves, the oil was supplied to the complainant on 27-2-2017 i.e. after three months. The opposite parties have tried to justify the delay but this delay is not explained in any manner. The opposite parties have also got recorded FIR on 28-11-2016. It is version of the opposite parties that FIR got recorded on 28-11-2016 was not correct and second FIR was got recorded by moving application on 9-2-2017 i.e. after more than two months thereafter. In case FIR recorded on 28-11-2016 was not proper, the opposite parties were to take further action immediately thereafter but no action was taken till 0-2-2017. The complainant cannot be make to suffer for the lapse on the part of the opposite parties. As per opposite parties also, the complainant remained deprived from use of electricity for a period of more than three months without fault on his part and due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has pleaded that he used to irrigate 10 acres of land from tube well. This Forum can take judicial notice of the fact that complainant was to arrange water from other sources by spending huge amount. The produce of the complainant also suffered due to non-supply of electricity from transformer. Therefore, the compensation claimed by complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,00 Lacs is quite reasonable. As such, the complaint be accepted.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that deficiency in service can be held only if there is any negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The documentary evidence will prove that opposite parties started process immediately after receiving intimation from complainant. Letter Ex. OP-1/2 proves that matter was immediately referred to SHO, Police Station, Phul, for registration of FIR. The letter dated 9-2-2017 (Ex. OP-1/6) proves that SHO was again requested to record FIR as per version mentioned in the application. This FIR was registered on 9-2-2017. As per departmental procedure, further action was to be taken only after registration of FIR. Ex. OP-1/8 proves that SJO was issued for restoration of supply. Ex. OP-1/9 also proves that on 17-2-2017 store requisition form for oil was also prepared. Letter dated 20-2-2017 (Ex. OP-1/14) also proves that oil was not available at store and the same was made available on 27-2-2017. This documentary evidence proves that opposite parties took steps immediately after receipt of information. There is no unreasonable delay on the part of the opposite parties.

15. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3.00 Lacs but there is no documentary evidence to prove any loss to the crops. The complainant has also not produced any evidence to prove ownership of his land. There is no evidence to prove any expenses to make alternative arrangement for irrigation of land. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation as claimed.

16. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

17. The admitted facts are that complainant is holding electric tube well connection. He was getting supply from the transformer in question. The oil was stolen from his transformer on 26-11-2016. The complainant immediately intimated the opposite parties vide application (Ex. C-2). The complainant also reported the matter to the police when the matter was reported to the opposite parties. The opposite parties were expected to take steps immediately. Of course the opposite parties also got recorded FIR on the basis of letter dated 28-11-2016.

18. It is pleaded that FIR was not correct. In case FIR was not proper/correct, the opposite parties were to take up the matter with the concerned police station immediately thereafter but the next letter was written to the SHO on 9-2-2017. Thus, it can be safely inferred that opposite parties remained silent on the matter from 28-11-2016 to 8-2-2017. The electricity was restored to the connection on 27-2-2017 after three months. Therefore, this fact shows deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

19. Now the point is regarding compensation. The complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3.00 Lacs by pleading that he owns 10 acres of land but there is no evidence to prove this fact. The complainant has also pleaded that his 10 acres of land suffered badly and there is total loss of crops but again there is no evidence to prove this fact. It is well settled that compensation is to be in propotionate to the loss. When the complainant has failed to prove any loss as claimed, the loss is to be assessed by guess work. Therefore, the complainant is held entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-.

20. Resultantly, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 3,000/- as cost . The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

21. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

22. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

23. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. As there is shortage of postal stamps, parties can also collect the copy of order personally/through counsel against receipt. File be consigned to the record room.

    Announced :

    08-03-2018 (M.P.Singh Pahwa )

    President

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur) (Jarnail Singh)

    Member Member