PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Narinder Kaur

IT is an appeal against the order dated 23.1.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had applied for temporary electricity connection for tubewell on 25.6.2001 after remitting the requisite fee of Rs. 100/- to the appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party). The complainant was granted temporary connection on payment of Rs. 4,000/- in lumpsum against a valid receipt of payment. She had applied for permanent connection on 23.10.2001 and had completed all the requisite formalities. The opposite party has not released the permanent electric connection. In the complaint, before the District Forum, a prayer was made that the opposite party be directed to release permanent connection and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- be also awarded to the complainant. It was then stated in the complaint that despite completing the formalities, the opposite party had not released the connection. She had gone to the office of the opposite party time and again but no action was taken. According to the complainant, Dalbir Singh son of S. Kundan Singh and Gurdial Singh son of Prem Singh were the persons who had been released the connection in a similar situation. The action of the opposite party, according to the complainant, in not releasing the permanent connection to the complainant amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Opposite party in its reply admitted that the complainant had applied for a temporary tubewell connection on 25.6.2001 and the same was granted. It was also admitted in the reply that the complainant had applied for permanent tubewell connection on 23.10.2001 after completing all the formalities. It was pleaded in the reply that according to Commercial Circular No. 70/01, no permanent tubewell connection could be released to any consumer if the distance of LT line from the place of tubewell is more than 500 metres and in the case in hand, the distance of LT line from the place of tubewell connection was more than 500 metres. It was in these circumstance, that the connection was not released to the complainant. According to the reply, tubewell connection was running in the name of Dalbir Singh and the connection was also granted to Gurdial Singh as the distance of the site of tubewell from LT line is less than 500 metres. A prayer was made that the complaint be dismissed.

After going through the record and after hearing the Counsel for the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence this appeal.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the detailed order of the District Forum. It is not disputed that the complainant had applied for the temporary tubewell connection, which was granted to her in accordance with the terms laid down by the opposite party and the complainant had applied for permanent connection on 23.10.2001. One of the stipulations in the Commercial Circular No. 70/01 is that length of the LT line should not be more than 500 metres in case the connection is to be granted. The opposite party had pleaded in the reply that distance of LT line from the place of tubewell connection was more than 500 metres, thus, the connection could not be released to the complainant. The complainant has stated in her affidavit Ex. C-2 filed before the District Forum that at the time of granting the connection, the opposite party prepared site plan after visiting the spot, which was signed by Subhash Kumar, Junior Engineer and it was also approved by the SDO and the concerned XEN, which shows that the distance of the tubewell connection was much less than the stipulation of 500 metres. She had deposed in the affidavit that the site plan along with all the relevant documents pertaining to the connection, was in the custody of the opposite party and the opposite party had concealed the fact from the District Forum deliberately by not bringing the documents on record. The opposite party has not produced the record mentioned by the complainant in her affidavit. No effort has been made by the opposite party to show that the distance was more than 500 metres and that the site plan prepared earlier by the officials of the opposite party had shown that the distance was much less than 500 metres. The opposite party has not produced any cogent evidence on record to prove that the distance of the LT line from the site of the tubewell was more than 500 metres. No affidavit of the official concerned who had prepared the site plan and had effected measurement has been filed. The onus rests on the opposite party to prove that the distance of LT line from the site of tubewell connection was more than 500 metres. No evidence has been adduced to discharge this onus. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as meritless. Appeal dismissed.