PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs ZORA SINGH

THESE 71 Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner, Punjab State Electricity Board against orders passed by the State Commission dismissing appeals filed by the petitioner. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondents had filed complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

VERY briefly the facts leading to filing of complaints before the District Forums were that they had applied for electricity connection for agriculture purposes in response to which demand notices were issued. Certain amounts were also got deposited. Complainants, hopeful of getting the connection soon after depositing the demanded amounts, in many cases dug bore wells, in many cases constructed ''Kothis''/Pump Houses, in several cases purchased electric pumps/motors, but when even after expiry of three to five years - in some cases even more, no electric connection was given by the petitioner, complaints came to be filed before the District Forums who after hearing the parties allowed the complaints with direction to give the connection within two months/three to six months. In certain cases compensation varying from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded for deficiency in service. In cases where the petitioner had alleged non-compliance of certain provisions of demand notice, petitioner was allowed one month''s time to inform the complainant of the discrepancy and upon receipt of reply to give connection within two months thereafter. Aggrieved by the orders passed by District Forum, in above terms, appeals were filed before the State Commission challenging the orders of the District Forum mainly on one ground that petitioner maintains a seniority list which cannot be violated as it will work to the detriment of people who had also registered for getting connections and are higher up in the seniority list than the complainants. State Commission treating Appeal No. 540/2002 as a lead case, and after hearing the parties, dismissed this appeal filed by the petitioner in this case. This order was followed in R.P. Nos. 1751-1756/2002, 2217/2002, 2257-2269/2002, 2288-2294/2002, 2296-2298/2002, 227, 345, 356, 357, 373-375/2003, 450, 464, 522, 538, 590-591, 2242, 2272/2003.

In R.P. Nos. 2270-2279/2002, appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation as appeals had been filed with a delay of 9 days. In R.P. Nos. 2280-2287/2002, appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation as these appeals had been filed with a delay of 13 days. In R.P. Nos. 1248-1254/2003, appeals filed before the State Commission were dismissed as barred by limitation as appeals in these cases had been filed with a delay of 6 days.

IN R.P. Nos. 2295/2002 and 448/2003, appeals were dismissed by the State Commission following its own order in the case of PSEB through its Chariman, Patiala & Ors. v. Dalbir Singh, reported as 2000 (2) CCT 125. Since point involved in these appeals is common, we go on to pass a single order. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. Undisputed facts of the case are that on the complainant''s having made application for grant of electric connection for agriculture purpose, demand notices were issued. Certain amounts were deposited with the petitioner as also in many instances investment for construction of Pump Houses/purchase of equipment etc. was made by the complainants. Instruction No. 26 of the Sales Manual of the Board, envisage provision of connection within two months after issue of demand note. Yet years passed and when no electricity connection was forthcoming for good and not so good reasons, complaints came to be filed. While we find the orders of the District Forum to be equitable to those who came before them, yet it will be unjust and inequitable if complainants alone are allowed to jump the queue, i.e., the seniority list maintained by the petitioner. It is not the case of the complainants that anybody below them in the seniority list has been given the connection. On the other hand expectations were raised and amounts collected from the complainants. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the cases before us and also in the interest of equity, we sought the presence of Chief Engineer (Commercial) of the petitioner Board and heard him. He was unable to explain, if they were not in a position to give electric connection within a reasonable time, then why was money collected from the farmers ? He gave an assurance and undertaking on behalf of the petitioner that while maintaining the seniority list, petitioner shall be able to give electricity connections to all the respondents/complainants before us by 31.3.2004. At the time of arguments this was affirmed at the Bar by the learned Counsels of the petitioner. In the interest of equity and with a view to maintain balance between these before us and those who are not, we have decided to accept this solemn undertaking given by a Senior Functionary of the petitioner. However, we find that while connection would be given by the date given out earlier. Petitioner, cannot be permitted to get undue enrichment from this money, deposited by the respondent/complainant without getting any service in return. Had the money been invested, it would have brought certain return. Petitioner is directed to grant interest @ 12% on the deposited amount from the date of deposit upto the date of the energization of electric connection. Final figures of credit/debit will be worked out by the petitioner at the time of energization of the connection, and communicated to the complainant(s) within four weeks of energization giving full details. Respondents/complainants shall also be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in each case for harassment, loss to the complainant and to cover some interest payment on the premature investments made by them in Pump House(s), purchase of equipments etc. Respondent/complainant(s) would also be entitled to cost which we fix at Rs. 2,000/- in each case. These two payments be made within six weeks of this order. If there are any discrepancies still left, which were raised in the context of Demand Notice, petitioner should point that out within four weeks and help the complainant to remove that at the earliest. All the revision petitions are allowed in above terms and orders of District Forum as affirmed by State Commission, are set aside. It is also made clear that in case, the respondents/complainants do not get the electric connection within the time limit indicated by the Chief Engineer Commercial of the petitioner. Petitioner shall then have to pay very heavy cost for such a failure to perform, in each case. Revision Petitions allowed.