Punjab

StateCommission

A/636/2018

PSPCL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarabjit singh - Opp.Party(s)

Channdeep Singh Nagi

18 Mar 2019

ORDER

                                                     FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

 

                   First Appeal No.636 of 2018

 

                                                          Date of Institution   : 14.11.2018                       

                                                          Order Reserved on :12.03.2019

                                                          Date of Decision     : 18.03.2019

 

1.      Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Managing Director.

2.      Assistant Executive Engineer, Commercial Sub Division, PSPCL, Nabha, District Patiala.

3.      Commercial Sub Division, PSPCL , Nabha through Assistant Executive Engineer.

 

                                                                 ..Appellants/Opposite parties

                   Versus

 

Sarabjit Singh son of Sh. Bant Singh, resident of Village Surajpur, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

 

                                                          …..Respondent/Complainant

 

First Appeal against order dated 11.10.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Patiala.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

             Sh.Rajinder Goyal,  Member.

Present:-

          For the appellants       :   Sh.C.S Negi, Advocate

          For the respondent      :   Sh.H.S Dhandi, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

                    Challenge in this appeal by appellants is to order dated 11.10.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Patiala, directing the appellants to restore the electric motor connection bearing A/c no. AP 38/579 by setting aside notice no.803 dated 27.04.2017 issued by appellants and by further directing appellants to pay amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to respondent/Sarabjit Singh of this appeal. The respondent of this appeal is complainant before District Forum Patiala and appellants of this appeal are opposite parties therein and they be referred, as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.                The complainant/Sarabjit Singh has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against opposite parties (in short OPs) on the averments, that one Gurnam Singh applied for electric tubewell connection in the year 1985 to OPs, which was issued in his name in the year 2003, vide A/c no.AP 38/539 (old) with sanctioned load of 5 BHP and said connection was installed in the fields of Gurnam Singh at village Surajpur Tehsil Nabha District Patiala in the year 2004 and he was using the above said electricity connection by paying bills to OPs therefor. Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh sons of above Gurnam Singh exchanged their land with Sarabjit Singh complainant in the year 2005 measuring 7 Bigha 19 Biswa, fully detailed in para no.1 of the complaint situated at Village Surajpur, vide mutation of exchange no. 901. The complainant also took in exchange land measuring 1 Bigha 14 Biswa bearing 34/1558 share out of total land measuring 77 Bigha 18 Biswa in Khewat no.108, Khatoni no.219 to 225,vide above mutation no. 901. Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh gave possession of 6 Bigha 5 Biswa out of Khasra no.608 min (3-2), 609 min (3-2), 610 min (2-10), situated at Village Surajpur to complainant Sarabjit Singh on that basis. The complainant became owner in possession of the above exchanged land in his favour. After exchange of land, the electric tubewell connection bearing A/c no.AP38/539 which was installed in the above said land was also received in exchange by complainant from above Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh. He has been paying the bills of consumption of tubewell connection of land in his favour since then,  where the electricity connection was installed by OPs. OPs transferred the above electric  tubewell connection in dispute in the name of complainant after due verification and after completing all formalities under rules of PSPCL and requisite fee was also deposited by him with OPs in that regard. OPs threatened to disconnect said electricity connection of the complainant and he was constrained to file civil suit for permanent injunction against OPs before Civil Judge Nabha, which is sub-judice. OPs appeared in the said civil suit and admitted the fact that said connection was allotted to Gurnam Singh by them and also admitted this fact that said connection was transferred in the name of the complainant after completing all the formalities and due verification on payment of requisite fees. It was also admitted by OPs in the above civil suit that electricity connection has been running in Khasra no. 610 at village Surajpur and also admitted this fact that one Jasbir Singh son of Baldev Singh  of the same village filed a false complaint against above electric connection in dispute before OPs due to party faction in the village. Jasbir Singh has no concern with the above land and with electric connection whatsoever. The officials of OPs visited the spot on 27.04.2017  illegally  and unauthorizedly disconnected the above electric connection of complainant without any rhyme or reason.  The complainant asked the reason for disconnecting his above said connection, but no reply was given by OPs to him. OPs refused to pay any attention to his requests , so he was left with no opportunity except to file the instant complaint. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  He has filed complaint against OPs and prayed that OPs be directed to reinstall/reconnect/restore the above said electric tubewell connection, besides to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complicated questions of facts and law are involved in the present case, which can be adjudicated by regular Civil Court only.  The complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint. On merits, It was admitted by OPs that Gurnam Singh had applied for electric connection in the year 2003 and same was sanctioned and granted to him under A/c no.AP38/539 (old) and said Gurnam Singh was using the same, but said connection was got installed by him in the land of his sons Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh instead of his own land, which was contrary to the rules of OPs. Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh sons of Gurnam Singh were owners of land to the extent of 125/3811 share in the khewat up to 14.05.2004 only and thereafter they transferred their land with Sarabjit Singh/complainant by way of exchange of land, vide mutation no. 901. Jasbir Singh son of Baldev Singh filed complaint with OPs to the effect  that above said tubewell connection no. 4SP-539 (AP 38439), which was issued in the name of Gurnam Singh was not actually installed in his land. On his complaint, OPs started an enquiry into the matter and it was revealed from report dated 25.04.2017 of Naib Tehsildar Nabha, the tubewell  of said connection has been running in Khasra no. 610 at village Surajpur  and said khewat forms part of 190 Bighas 11 Biswas of land. Above Mohinder Singh and Harbans Sinsh sons of Gurnam Singh were owners of above land to the extent of 125/3811 share in the said khewat up to 14.05.2014 and thereafter they transferred it by way of their exchange of land with Sarabjit Singh complainant, vide Mutation no. 901, therefore, the said installation of electric connection in the name of Sarabjit Singh was against the rules and same has been rightly disconnected by OPs after holding proper inquiry as well as on the basis of report of Naib Tehsildar Nabha. The complainant has suppressed the true facts from OPs. It was denied that electric tubewell  connection was taken in exchange by the complainant Sarabjit Singh from Mahinder Singh and Gurnam Singh. The complainant filed a civil suit just to harass the OPs. Rest of the averments of the complainants were denied by OPs and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The complainant tendered in evidence  his affidavit Ex.C-A , affidavit of Jagtar Singh son of Ajaib Singh resident of Village Surjapur Tehsil Nabha District Patiala as Ex.C-B along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar Sharma SDO PSPCL as Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.  On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Consumer Forum Patiala accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 11.10.2018. Aggrieved by above order of the District Forum Patiala, opposite parties now appellants have carried this appeal against the same as appellants.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.

6.                The submission of counsel for appellants in this appeal is that one Gurnam Singh applied for tubewell connection  with them in the year 1985, which was sanctioned to him in the year 2003, vide A/c no.AP 38/539 (old) with sanctioned load of 5 BHP. Gurnam Singh was peremptorily required to be owner of the land in order to avail the facility of tubewell connection from them. Gurnam Singh fraudulently and deliberately misrepresented the facts to them and maneuvered the tubewell connection by getting it installed in the fields of his sons at Village Surajpur Tehsil Nabha District Patiala  in the year 2004. He was not owner of that land,  where tubewell connection was got installed by him and had the correct facts been divulgated  to OPs now appellants by him, the tubewell connection would not have been sanctioned and released to him for installation in land of some others. Gurnam Singh maneuvered the installation of the tubewell connection from OPs in the land of his sons Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh instead of his own land. Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh further exchanged their land with the respondent of this appeal Sarabjit Singh to the extent of 7 Bighas 9 Biswas out of total land 190-B11B on the basis of mutation of exchange, vide no. 901. The complainant now respondent in the appeal Sarabjit Singh received the land from Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh in exchange together with the tubewell connection. Sarabjit Singh complainant got tubewell connection transferred from OPs now appellants in his name. On the basis of complaint of Jasbir Singh with regard to illegally procuring the tubewell connection by Gurnam Singh in the land of Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh instead of his own land from OPs, the matter was enquired into by OPs. The report of Naib Tehsildar Nabha dated 25.04.2017, vide no.648 was received regarding location of the installation of installation of tubewell connection in Khasra no. 610, the joint property of shareholders, which was further exchanged by Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh to complainant on the basis of oral exchange, vide mutation no.901. In nutshell, the case of OPs now appellants is that Gurnam Singh was not owner of the land and he maneuvered tubewell connection from OPs by keeping them in darkness and got it installed in the land of his sons Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh instead of his own land by violating the regulation 3.3.2 of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual governing sanction of tubewell connection.

7.                The evidence on the record has been appraised by us with the able assistance of counsel for the parties. The point in dispute in this case, is whether Gurnam Singh was owner of the land and he obtained tubewell connection from OPs on that basis and thereby got it installed in his own land, which was a condition precedent for sanction and release of tubewell connection under the regulation no.3.3.2 qua obtaining tubewell connection. The version of complainant in this case is that he obtained tubewell connection along with 7 Bigha 19 Biswa land from Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh by virtue of mutation no.901. The tubewell connection was in the name of Gurnam Singh and he consented for its transfer to complainant, which was allotted in the name of complainant in the year 2011 and new A/c no.AP238/579 instead of old account no.AP38/539 is now in operation. He submitted that he has been paying consumption bills since then and is recorded as the proprietor of this tubewell connection even in the passbook issued by OPs. This tubewell connection is the only source of irrigation of his land. Even Gurnam Singh original connection holder has also admitted this fact that tubewell connection has been transferred in the name of complainant after completing all formalities and proper verification was also done in this regard. It is further case of the complainant that Jasbir Singh son of Baldev Singh,  being politically opposed to him, is a green-eyed man on that count and he filed this complaint just on false ground with bad motive only. The officials of OPs illegally disconnected his tubewell connection on 27.04.2017, despite the fact that he has been proprietor of this tubewell connection and has been paying consumption charges therefor without any default. On the other hand, the submission of counsel for OPs now appellants is that Gurnam Singh committed fraud with OPs and obtained tubewell connection by keeping them in dark and got it installed in the land of some other persons videlicet  his sons Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh instead of his own land and thereby impinged  the rules in force. It was further submitted by counsel for OPs that as per Regulation  no.3.3.2 of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual, Gurnam Singh could not have obtained the tubewell connection from OPs, if it was not to be installed in his own land, as it was mandatory for him to  be the owner of the agricultural land, where it was to be installed. Copy of jamabandi Ex.C-1 has been perused by us for the year 1999-2000 of Village Surjapur, Tehsil Nabha District Patiala. Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh sons of Gurnam Singh are recorded as joint owners of 125/3811 of the land and they exchanged this land with Sarabjit Singh complainant, vide mutation no.901 as embodied   in column of ‘remarks’ of this jamabandi Ex.C-1. Ex.C-2 is copy of mutation no.901 proving the fact of sanction of this mutation of exchange of 8 Bighas of the land from Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh sons of Gurnam Singh to complainant of this case. Ex.C-3 is passbook in the name of the complainant Sarabjit Singh of this tubewell connection bearing A/c AP 38/579 with connected load of 10 BHP. Sarabjit Singh/complainant applied for transfer of connection by moving application to OPs, vide Ex.C-4 and submitted the self-declaration for himself, of Gurnam Singh son of Dit Singh resident of Village Surajpur Tehsil Nabha District Patiala original connection holder of it, Mohinder Singh son of Gurnam Singh resident of Village Surajpur Tehsil Nabha District Patiala and of Harbans Singh son of Gurnam Singh. Even Gurnam Singh who obtained electricity connection from OPs in his name stated in his self-declaration dated 09.06.2011 that tubewell connection has been running in the land, which has been exchanged by his sons Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh in the name of Sarabjit Singh/complainant. It is apparent from this self-declaration dated 09.06.2011 of Gurnam Singh, which is part of  application for transfer of tubewell connection moved by Sarabajit Singh complainant Ex.C-4 that Gurnam Singh, who originally obtained this tubewell connection from OPs in his name got it installed in the land of his sons Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh and not in his own land. This self-declaration of Gurnam Singh has thus lent corroboration to this fact that he got tubewell connection installed in the land of his sons Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh, instead of his own land, which was mandatorily required from him under rules. He himself admitted this fact in his self-declaration dated 09.06.2011 forming part of application of complainant Ex.C-4. Even Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh in their respective self-declarations dated 09.06.2011 forming part of Ex.C-4 that electricity connection has been running in their owned land, which they further  transferred by way of exchange in the name of Sarabjit Singh/complainant. Ex.C-5 is jamabandi for the year 2014-15, whereby Sarabjit Singh-complainant has been transposed in the column of ownership in this jamabandi to be joint owner of 25/3811 share in place of Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh original transferors. Ex.C-6  is copy of civil suit filed by Sarabjit Singh complainant before Court of Additional Civil Judge (SD) Nabha, which he withdrew subsequently on 05.05.2017. The evidence of the complainant Sarabjit Singh is contained in his affidavit Ex.C-A. Affidavit of Jagtar Singh Ex.C-B has also been evaluated by us in the light of other evidence on the record.

8.                To refute this evidence, OPs placed on record affidavit of Ashok Kumar Sharma SDO PSPCL as Ex.OP-A. It has transpired in his evidence that Gurnam Singh applied for tubewell connection  in the year 2003 with OPs, which was sanctioned and granted to him bearing A/c no. AP38/539 (old). He got said tubewell connection installed in the land of his sons Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh  instead of his own land against prevailing rules of OPs. Thereafter, Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh transferred/exchanged their land with Sarabjit Singh complainant, despite the fact that they were not connection holders of this tubewell connection sanctioned by OPs. Mere installation of tubewell connection unauthorizedly in their land would not clothe them with the ownership of this tubewell connection. As per report of Naib Tehsildar Nabha  dated 25.04.2017, the tubewell connection has been installed in the land bearing khasra no. 610 at Village Surajpur  and Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh sons of Gurnam Singh are joint owners of the land to the extent of 125/3811 share up to 14.05.2004 and Gurnam Singh original connection holder figures nowhere in it and thereafter they exchanged their land with Sarabjit Singh on the basis of mutation no. 901. Report of Naib Tehsildar Nabha Ex.OP-1 is on the record. Copy of complaint of Jasbir Singh son of Baldev Singh in this regard is Ex.OP-2. This witness further deposed that Gurnam Singh committed fraud in getting the tubewell connection installed in the land of other persons and not in his own land and he violated the rules of OPs in that regard. This witness further stated in his testimony that this tubewell connection could be sanctioned to a person and installed in his own land only, which is sine qua non for its installation,  but not in the land of others. It has further transpired in his testimony that FIR has been registered against Gurnam Singh, vide Ex.OP-3 in this regard for this fraudulent act practiced upon OPs.

9.                From parsing of  above referred evidence on the record and hearing the respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we conclude that Gurnam Singh committed an illegality and fraud with OPs in obtaining the tubewell connection and thereby getting it installed in the land of  his sons Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh instead of his own land. Gurnam Singh was not owner of the land, where it was got installed. He is not proved to be owner of the land on the basis of which he applied for this connection. The tubewell connection  could be installed in the land of the person, who was sanctioned it by OPs and not in the land of others in his name. This is violation of regulation no.3.3.2 of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual  governing sanctioning of tubewell connection. Hence, OPs could not have sanctioned it to him, had correct picture been  portrayed  by him to OPs. His sons Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh, who were not legally connection holders with the sanction of OPs and they further transferred tubewell connection in the name of Sarabjit Singh/complainant along with land, which was not permissible under rules. A person, who is not connection holder, simply on account of its installation in his land without sanctioning it in his favour  cannot transfer the tubewell connection to any other person. It is, thus, established on the record that neither Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh were owners of the tubewell connection nor it was sanctioned to them by OPs and they exchanged it to Sarabjit Singh/complainant unauthorizedly, which they could not have done under rules. The electricity as defined in Section 2(23) of Electricity Act 2003 is energy which is not immovable property, Regulation no.3.3.2 up to 30.06.2018 embodied in Electricity Supply Instruction Manual lays down as under:-

3.3.2 for Tubewell connection:

An applicant for a Tube well connection under general category, who has taken the land on lease or patta for a period of 20 years (minimum) shall be required to furnish the indemnity bond. He shall also submit attested copy of the registered lease/patta of land in support of his being lawful occupier. For release of tube well connection under General of Priority categories minimum land holding of one acre shall be pre-requisite except in case of priorities mentioned in instruction 13.2 (b, c, g, I, r, s & t). In case the applicant is having joint ownership/Mushtarka Khata land in his possession as per  revenue record where the connection is to be released or shifted, his application should be accepted on furnishing of indemnity bond. However, if the applicant having joint ownership is not in possession of land where connection is to be released. NOC of other members of the family/relatives shall be necessary for release/shifting of the connection. Minimum land holding condition in case of AP Hi-Tech priority category consumers shall be 2000 sq. meters (app. 4 kanals). Release of tube-well connection on priority shall be allowed to the prospective consumers in the State for Drip/Micro Sprinkler Irrigation System installed on a minimum area of 2 (two) hectares for fruit crops or 1 (one) hectare for Vegetables and non-horticulture crops.

Note: i)       in case of joint ownership/mushtarka khata cases, tube well connections can be released in the name of applicant even if he is holding less than 1 acre of land in his name but the total area to be covered for irrigation by the tube well is more than 1 acre. However, indemnity bond/NOC of other members of the family shall be obtained. Further, this relaxation is not applicable for priorities mentioned in instruction  - 13.2 (b, c, g I, r, s & t).

ii)       The concerned officers of the PSPCL shall ensure from the fard etc, at the time of registration of application, issue of demand notice and release of connection that the applicant is having land holding of one acre or as applicable in the relevant case.

It is, thus, pellucid from perusal of this regulation that minimum land holding of one acre shall be pre-requisite for releasing the connection of tube well under general category except cases covered under instruction 13.2. The case in hand is not covered under the above  instruction 13.2 and is covered under Regulation 3.3.2 of OPs only. Minimum requirement of one acre of land is the least, which is sine qua non for release of tubewell connection for agricultural land to the connection holder by the electricity department. Gurnam Singh who was sanctioned this electricity connection was not found to be owner of any land.  

10.              Consequently, the act of Gurnam Singh in obtaining the connection from Ops and then getting it installed in the land of his sons instead of his own land is in violation of rules permitting its sanction and they further exchanged it to Sarabjit Singh unauthorizedly.  In this view of the matter, we find that Gurnam Singh fraudulently obtained tubewell connection from OPs and got it installed in the land of his above sons,  instead of his own land for which it was sanctioned and thereafter his sons exchanged the land along with tubewell connection  by Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh in the name of Sarabjit Singh/complainant without being proprietor of this tubewell connection unauthorizedly.  Principle of estoppel would not be applicable in this case to perpetuate the illegality already committed at the inception  of obtaining tubewell connection by Gurnam Singh and getting it installed in the land of some other person against rules. OPs could not have done it,  had the correct picture been portrayed to them. The order passed by District Forum is, thus, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law to the extent of restoration of disconnected tubewell connection.

11.              So far the order of the District Forum directing the OPs now appellants to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to complainant is concerned, we find that this order of District Forum deserves to be sustained in this appeal. The OPs have not performed their part of duty properly in identifying the land with the help of the revenue officials at the time of installation of tubewell connection in the land , wherein it was sanctioned. It is inferred from the circumstances of the case that OP's officials were in cahoots with Gurnam Singh in unauthorized installation of this sanctioned tubewell connection in land of  some other persons instead of his own land, for which it was sanctioned. Had OPs been wary and diligent in the matter, this violation of rules would not have occurred at all. The complainant has to suffer innocently due to above act of Gurnam Singh and of OPs. Consequently, we order that due to negligence of OPs, they will pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- to complainant for this inconvenience caused to him. Since, it is fraudulent act on the part of Gurnam Singh in connivance with official of OPs, hence, the order of award of compensation of Rs.20,000/- by OPs  to complainant passed by District Forum is sustained in this appeal.

  12.            As a sequitor of our above discussion, the appeal of the appellant is partly accepted by setting aside the order of District Forum Patiala in directing the restoration of disconnected electricity connection of tubewell by OPs to complainant. The appeal of the appellant is partly dismissed by affirming the order of District Forum Patiala for payment of Rs.20,000/-  as compensation by OPs to complainant.

11.              The appellants had deposited the amount of Rs.20,000/-with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant of this appeal  by way of a crossed cheque / demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, subject to stay order if any.

13.              Arguments in this appeal were heard on 12.03.2019 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

13.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                       (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                                                          (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL)

                                                                         MEMBER

                    

March  18, 2019                                                                  

(ravi)