SOHAN SINGH BULLAR vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 23.10.1998 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the District Forum). The District Forum vide its above said order directed the opposite parties to make payment of an amount of 8,582/- with interest @ 7% per annum to the complainant. Both the parties are aggrieved against the order of the District Forum and have preferred appeal against that order. The complainant claims in his appeal (No. 1251 of 1998) that respondents/opposite parties be directed to pay commercial rate of interest and costs. On the other hand, the opposite parties have questioned the legality of the order of the District Forum itself.

UNDISPUTED facts are that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 8,582/- for tube-well connection under A.R.P.C. scheme. Electric connection was installed as per the request of the complainant. As per the scheme the deposited amount was to carry interest @ 7% per annum and the amount was to be adjusted against the consumption of electric bills/power bills for the tube-well. Some time after the amount was deposited and the electric connection for the tube-well was given, electric supply for the tube-well was made free. The amount, thus, was required to be refunded back to the complainant. When the opposite parties did not refund the amount due, the complaint was filed for refund on the basis that the denial of refund by the opposite parties to the complainant amounted to deficiency in rendering service. Interest, costs etc. were also claimed in the complaint. After going through the relevant record and the order of the District Forum, we find that the objections taken by the opposite parties before the District Forum for not releasing an amount of Rs. 8,582/- alongwith interest etc. are not tenable.

First objection taken was that it was decided by the Punjab State Electricity Board to allow the adjustment of the refundable charges through bills of domestic supply connection only. As the complainant has not furnished the account number of his domestic supply connection, the amount due to him could not be adjusted.

IT is an admitted case that as per the A.R.P.C. scheme the amount was to be adjusted against consumption of electric bills/power bills for the tube-well. IT was much later that P.S.E.B. decided on its own to allow the adjustments of the refundable charges through bills of domestic supply connection only. In the case in hand, the complainant had no domestic supply connection at all. Thus, the stand taken by the opposite parties in not refunding back the amount to the petitioner is highly arbitrary. If the opposite parties have made some changes in the scheme of their own, then it cannot be to the detriment of the concerned parties. Even otherwise, the decision of the P.S.E.B. made later on to allow adjustment of refundable charges through domestic supply is not reasonable. As stated above, under the A.R.P.C. scheme deposited amount was to be adjusted against consumption of electric bills/power bills for the tube-well. IT was not provided in that scheme that the deposited amount shall be adjusted against domestic supply nor it was provided under that scheme that only those persons who have got domestic supply connection could be the beneficiaries under that scheme. Thus in not allowing the refund to the complainant of the amount due certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We uphold this finding of the District Forum. Another objection was taken by the opposite parties before the District Forum that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter as the electric connection was sanctioned in village Kattu Uppali, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur. This objection has rightly been rejected by the District Forum after advancing cogent reasons.

UNDER Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one at the time of institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain provided that in any such case either the permission of the District Forum is given or opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or work for gain acquiesce in such institution. Admittedly, in the case in hand, opposite party No. 1 has its head office in Patiala. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. XEN Urban Distribution-Barnala District Sangrur and Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division No. 1, P.S.E.B. Dhanula, District Sangrur have contested the case on merits and have led evidence. In that way, they have also acquiesced jurisdiction of the District Forum in the institution of the complaint before the District Forum. We uphold the decision of the District Forum on the point of jurisdiction also and hold that the District Forum has got the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Thus, we dismiss the Appeal No. 1243 of 1998 filed by the opposite party i.e. Punjab State Electricity Board with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.

SO far as, the appeal of the complainant is concerned, it has been held by the District Forum, the opposite parties were found to be deficient in service and that the opposite parties showed wilful neglect in not releasing the sum due to the complainant. In these circumstances, we feel that merely directing the respondents/opposite parties to make payment of Rs. 8,582/- with interest @ 7% per annum is not sufficient. When it has been held that the opposite parties were found deficient in service and had wilfully denied the claim of the complainant, then the ends of justice would have met if the rate of interest would have been awarded @ 18% per annum and some compensation should have also been provided to the complainant due to inconvenience and mental tension caused to him on this type of behaviour of the opposite parties. Consequently, we modify the order of the District Forum and direct the opposite parties/respondents to make payment of Rs. 8,582/- with interest @ 18% per annum instead of 7% per annum. Compensation of Rs. 3,000/- shall also be paid by the opposite parties for inconvenience, pain and agony caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Resultantly, this appeal (No. 1251 of 1998) is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal allowed with costs.