Judgment:
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member:
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman and others, appellants/opposite parties (In short âthe appellantsâ) have filed this appeal against the order dated 15.02.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (in short âthe District Forumâ).
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Mohinder Singh Mander, respondent/complainant (hereinafter called as âthe respondentâ) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, âthe Actâ) against the appellants, making the averments that he applied for single phase electric connection of less than one KW in his land situated at village Bakapur and appellant no.4, after receiving the application, received the security for the said connection amounting to Rs.1,590/- vide receipt dated 06.05.2009. After the issue of demand notice, the test report was duly submitted which was accepted by appellant no.4 and the service connection order was issued. The service connection order was issued after receiving the test report and the security money was deposited by the respondent in the month of May/June, 2009. The respondent has been visiting the office of appellant no.4 for release of the connection, but appellant no.4 has failed to release the connection. The appellants are deficient in service and guilty of adopting unfair trade practice for not releasing the connection. The respondent suffered a lot of mental tension and harassment.
3. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to immediately release the connection and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
4. In the written version filed on behalf of the appellants, it was admitted that the respondent applied for single phase electric connection and paid the security and other installation charges. It was further submitted that as per the instructions of the Board, no demand notice is to be issued to DS/CS category of new applicants. The security and other charges were deposited at the time of submission of the test report and the application form. SCO No.70/24632 was issued for the release of the connection. The concerned JE visited the site of connection, to release the connection in compliance with SCO No.70/24632 and he submitted the report to the office that the premises is situated at scheduled road i.e. Balachaur-Garhshankar Road. The notice was issued to the respondent and his reply was received and then the case was marked to Engineer Prem Singh, AEE and Jasvir Singh, AJE and they submitted the report that the premises fall on the scheduled road and connection cannot be released. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
6. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the respondent has produced the site plan Ex.C-4 which reveals that the nearest corner of the site of the respondent where the connection has to be installed was at a distance of 156.3 feet, but the appellants have not made any mention of the above documents in affidavit Ex.R-1 and the refusal to release the connection is unjustified and Regulation 1.4 is not attracted. The complaint was allowed and the appellants were directed to release the connection and to pay Rs.500/- as costs.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.02.2010, the appellants have come up in appeal.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The only question to be decided in the present appeal is whether the electric connection cannot be released on the scheduled road and the same is being taken for commercial purpose?
10. To decide this controversy, this Commission vide order dated 22nd December, 2010 directed the Administrator, GMADA, Mohali to appoint an officer, not below the rank XEN, to visit the spot and to give report. Ultimately, the report was received and vide order dated 19.04.2011, the objections, if any, were invited.
11. We have perused the report which is a detailed one. As per the report of Sub Divisional Engineer, Electricity, GLADA, Ludhiana, at the spot, the market has been constructed in which there are 18 shops and one âChubara. Measurement was done as per the width of the road. First shop is at a distance of 19 feet from the side of Garhshankar and 14 feet from the side of Chandigarh. Chubara is at a distance of 103.5 feet and 155.5 feet and from the centre, it is 98.5 feet.
12. Thus, as per the report and the site plan, the respondent has raised the construction of shops on the scheduled road within the area in which the construction is not permitted. The respondent has also constructed 18 shops for commercial purpose. The counsel for the respondent argued that the other houses are also on the scheduled road and he has produced the photographs at the time of arguments, but this argument is not tenable because the respondent cannot be permitted to take the connection which is not permissible on the scheduled road and within the prohibited distance. If other persons have done something wrong, that in no way justify the action of the respondent. The appropriate authority can take action as per the law. The appellants have rightly declined to release the connection. Regulation 1.4 prohibits the release of connection to such premises, but the District Forum has altogether ignored the same. The order passed by the District Forum is against the law and facts and is not sustainable.
13. Sequel to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 15.02.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.250/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant no.3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.10.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.