SANJOGATA Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 15.2.1999 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter called the District Forum) vide which the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts stated in the first three paras of the complaint lodged by the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant had been given Electricity Temporary Connection bearing A/c No. T-74 in village Beganwali. A security amount of Rs.5,000/- was deposited on 1.7.1998. The electricity connection is meant for operation of tubewell. On 25.7.1998 a team of the opposite parties comprising Junior Engineer and others came to the complainant's village at about 1.30 p. m. and had gone to the site of installation. On seeing connection they removed the cables and told the servant of the complainant to send his master to Circle Office, Khui Khera. It needs mention here that factual position in these three paras has been admitted as correct by the opposite party.

(3.) In para No.4 of the complaint it has been specifically alleged by the complainant that her husband Sh. Dalip Singh had visited the Circle Office, Khui Khera and had apprised the officers present there that the temporary connection provided to the complainant was legal and was within the framework of the Board. No heed was paid to the version of the complainant and the cable was not installed. In the next para No.5 of the complaint it has been specifically alleged that a representation was made to the Executive Engineer and the complainant had also met S. E. , P. S. E. B. , Mukatsar and had apprised him to the illegal disconnection of the cable. It is then mentioned in this para of the complaint that as a result of illegal disconnection the operation of the tubewell had been stopped and the complainant had been subjected to unnecessary harassment. It is then alleged that even for removing the cable the opposite parties had not given any sort of notice, which is required to be given. It is further alleged in the complaint that as a result of illegal disconnection crops of the complainant could not be watered for three days, resulting into financial loss to the complainant. These allegations made by the complainant have simply been denied. In reply to the allegations made in para 4 of the complaint it is simply stated by the opposite party that in fact cable was removed by an A. A. E. at the time of checking, but on 26.7.1998 after knowing the fact that the temporary connection was issued to the complainant cable was restored on 27.7.1998.