Ranjeet Singh vs PSPCL Sub Division, Gardhiwala Hoshiarpur Punjab

Subhash Chandra, Member

The present revision petition under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed against the order dated 27 th November 2012 by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 976 of 2008 which had confirmed the order dated 04.08.2008 in CC no. 257 of 2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short ‘the District Forum’).

Through this order, two appeals i.e., RP No.2464 of 2014 (PSPCL vs Ranjit Singh) and RP no. 214 of 2015 (Ranjit Singh vs PSPCL) will be disposed of as both appeals emerge from the same order dated 27.11.2013 of the State Commission, Chandigarh. The facts are taken from RP no. 2464 of 2014 and the parties referred to as per their status in this appeal.

The brief facts of the present revision petition are that the respondent was using domestic electricity connection no.CD-65-0632 in village Dabakhri, Hoshiarpur registered in his father’s name as he resides abroad. In October 2006, revisionists offered to provide 24 hours of uninterrupted power supply (UPS) under a scheme which required payment of cost of material, construction, laying of wire at the expense of the consumer of the connection was to be provided beyond 500 meters of the village phirni . Uninterrupted power supply was to be provided through single phase of 11 KV line along with a suitable capacity single phase transformer to be erected at the cost of consumer. Power was to be drawn from the nearest tapping point from a 11 K V line to be provided by the revisionists.

The admitted facts are that the premises of the respondent/ complainant are beyond 500 meters of the village phirni of village Dabakhri. It is submitted by the revisionists that as per the report dated 25.03.2008 of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, appointed by them, the respondent’s premises was 558 meters from the village phirni . According to the respondent/ complainant, as per the policy guidelines of the revisionist, he should be asked to pay for UPS for only 58 meters which is the distance of his premises from the village phirni . On the contrary, it is contended by the revisionists that while the distance of the respondent/ complainant premises is 58 meters from the village phirni , the tapping point of 11KV line which is the requirement for the scheme, is located at a different location which is 350 meters from the respondent/ complainant’s premises. This is stated on the basis of the report of the Commissioner appointed by this Commission on 16.10.2015 and his report dated 30.11.2015.

The District Forum had allowed the appeal of the respondent/ complainant vide order in CC no. 257 of 2007 dated 04.08.2008 which reads as under:

“7. The grouse of the complainant is that in the month of October 2006, the Electricity Board provided 24 hours supply of electricity to the consumers of village Dabakhri. It is the allegation of the complainant that the JE of the OP demand Rs.15,000/- as bribe and told that in the case, the amount is not paid, the 24 hours supply will not be released. The OP raised the defence that as per rules of the Board, the 24 hours regular supply beyond 500 meters of the village phirni requires the payment of material and construction etc., to be made by the consumer. That the premises of the complainant (where the 24 hours supply is sought) is located at a distance of 560 meters from the village Phirni, as such the complainant is liable to make the payment under the rules of the Electricity Board.

Now, the only point which calls decision from this Forum is whether the 24 hours regular supply beyond 500 meters of the village Phirni requires the payment of material and construction etc., to be made by the consumer? The answer to this is in the affirmative.

The complainant has specifically alleged in paragraph no.2 of the complainant that the OP has already installed electric polls and fixed wire to provide 24 hours supply of electricity, whereas the OP in reply to paragraph no. 2 of the complainant had not specifically denied regarding the installation of electric polls and fixing of wire to provide 24 hours supply of electricity. The OP has raised the defence that as per the rules of the Electricity Board, the 24 hours regular supply beyond 500 meters of the village Phirni requires the payment of material and construction from the consumer. That the premises (where the 24 hours supply is sought) is located at a distance of 560 meters from the village Phirni, as such the place is beyond 500 meters, thus the complainant is liable for making the payment and also to complete the required formalities under the rules of the Board.

The OP has not denied regarding the installation of electric poles and fixation of wire to prove 24 hours supply of electricity to the complainant. The close scrutiny of paragraph no.2 of the reply filed by the OP makes it clear that, the OP is ready and willing to provides the 24 hours supply of electricity to the complainant on payment after completing the required formalities under the rules of Electricity Board. The OP has filed on record the affidavit of Manroop Singh, AEE, wherein he has stated that the measurement of the area was done by Halqa Kanungo on 25.03.2008. The district between the points has been found to be 558 meters.

Now, it is proved on record that the complainant had sought 24 hours supply of electricity at a distance which is beyond 500 meters of village Phirni and the distance between the village Phirni and the point, where the connection has been sought is 558 meters. Under the given situation, we are of opinion that the ends of the justice will be well met, if the OP is directed to provide 24 hours supply of electricity to the complainant on payment basis, on completion of required formalities.

As a result of the above discussion, the complainant is directed to make the payment of material and construction etc., beyond 500 meters of the village Phirni, i.e., 58 meters and also to complete the requisite formalities and thereafter, the opposite party is directed to provide 24 hours supply of electricity to the complainant forthwith. No order as to costs.”

In the appeal filed by the present revisionists before the State Commission, the order of the District Forum was upheld and the State Commission vide order dated 27.11.2013 in first appeal no. 976 of 2008 ordered as under:

“11. The admitted facts are that Shri Satnam Singh son of Kartar Singh the father of the respondent was holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c no. CD-65-0632. The respondent is using this connection and is a beneficiary. The appellant decided to provide 24 hours supply of electricity to the consumer of village Dabakhri in month of October 2006 and install the electric polls and wires to provide 24 hours supply of electricity. The house of the respondent is beyond 500 meters of the village Phirni and is located at distance of 560 meters from the village Phirni. The counsel for the respondent has relied upon the Regulations of 2007 of the appellant and under 9.1.1 Regulation certain criteria has been mentioned for new connections. Whereas the connection in dispute is not a new connection but it is old connection which was already existing at the time when the appellant decided to provide 24 hours electricity and as such the Regulation 2007 and particularly the Regulation 9.1.1 of 2007 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is also the case of the appellant that the charges are to be levied for the houses located beyond 500 meters of the Phirni. The appellant has relied upon the commercial circular 72/2005 Ex. R 2 and commercial circular 20/2004 Ex R 3 and Ex R 4 is the site plan and these circulars are applicable for the existing connections and the time of these circulars. Clause 3 of Ex R 3 is relevant in the present case and the same is reproduced as below:

(iii) “for extending this facility to individual dwelling units located beyond 500 meters of the Phirni the single phase 11 KV line shall be taken from the nearest tapping point and the cost shall be recovered accordingly”.

Thus, from the above circulars it is clear that for extending the facility to the dwelling units located beyond 500 meters of Phirni the single phase 11 KV line has to be taken from the nearest tapping point and cost has to be recovered accordingly. The District Forum vide order dated 03.03.2008 asked the appellant to produce demarcation/ measurement from the revenue authority supported by the affidavit of the SDO concerned and accordingly the demarcation was taken and Shri Manroop Singh, AEE filed his affidavit and deposed that the measurement of the area was done by Halqa Kanugo on 25.03.2008 and the distance between the points have been found to be 558 meters. The detailed report was submitted by the Kanugo.

From the above, it is clear that the respondent is liable to bear the costs and expenses of 58 meters of installation of poll and wires etc., to get the 24 hours supply. The District Forum has passed the order accordingly and has directed the respondent to complete the requisite formalities for laying of the line polls etc., at 58 meters and there is no ground to interfere the same as the order is legal, valid and factually correct. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. No order as to costs”.

Hence, the present revision petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. The revisionist has argued that the scheme for uninterrupted power supply is contingent upon the connection being provided from the existing 11 KV line located nearest to the premises of the consumer opting for uninterrupted power supply under the scheme. On technical grounds the location of the 11 KV line nearest to the premises of the respondent/ complainant is 350 meters as is evident from the report of the Commissioner appointed by this Commission. The revisionist, is therefore, willing to provide connection from this point to the respondent/ complainant subject to the deposit of the requisite amount towards the cost of material and construction. The respondent/ complainant has contended that since 11 KV connection has already been provided within the village, the power should be tapped from this point and provided at his premises which will amount to a distance of only 58 meters.

The revisional jurisdiction of this court is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 has observed:

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

However, in the current matter, the revision petition is based upon a wrong interpretation of the policy of the Government under which a benefit is sought to have been obtained. While the contention of the respondent/ complainant has been accepted by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission, it is relevant to note that the revisionist is bound by its scheme already laid down vide circulars nos. 58 of 2003 dated 26.08.2003, 20 of 2004 dated 19.04.2004 and 75 of 2005 dated 29.12.2005. As per these circulars the scheme is based on the tapping of power from the 11 KV line and installation of a transformer of suitable capacity at the premises of the person opting to avail the benefit under the scheme. Since there is a technical report stating that the nearest tapping point for 11 KV electricity supply is at a distance of 350 meters from the premises of the respondent/ complainant, the decision of the District Forum concluding otherwise and the State Commission upholding the same warrants interference from this Commission finding being perverse.

It is apparent that the scheme does not envisage extension of the existing 11 K V line provided at another location within the village phirni as contended by the respondent/ complainant. It is rather provisioning of a separate line that is tapped from an existing 11 KV lines to the premises of the beneficiary/ consumer for which there is a requirement of costs to be paid to the concerned Department. It is also seen that the lower fora have not appreciated this aspect, and have reckoned the available extended 11 KV line within the phirni as the tapping point. On this ground the revision petition is likely to succeed.

Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the respective orders of the District Forum in CC no.257 of 2007 and the State Commission in FA no. 976 of 2008 are set aside. The revisionists shall consider the application of the respondent/ complainant for 24 hours uninterrupted power supply in terms of its policy as per the circular no. CC no. 58 of 2003 from the tapping point of the existing 11 KV line measured and found to be at a distance of 350 meters from the premises of the respondent/ complainant as per the report dated 30.11.2015 of the Commissioner, appointed by this Commission, if such an application is made.

FA No. 214 of 2015 (Ranjit Singh vs PSPCL) is also dismissed in view of the order in RP no.2464 of 2014.

No order as to costs.