MOHINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The factual matrix of this case are that the respondents released a 12.5 HP tubewell connection under AP category to the petitioner which was being used for irrigation purposes. It is stated that the petitioner got installed a transformer for the purpose at his own cost under the SFS scheme by paying Rs. 62,500 to the respondents on 6.10.1999. According to the petitioner, the transformer was being used only for the electric supply to the petitioner. After installation of the transformer, the respondents changed the transformer without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner sent a registered notice on 23.10.2004 in continuation of his earlier application dated 8.9.2004 but in spite of his requests, the respondents did not change the transformer; rather, they allegedly put the load of more connections on the newly installed transformer. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have no right to exchange the transformer which was owned by the petitioner without any notice and consent of the petitioner. It is also his grievance that due to the negligence of the respondents, the petitioner suffered heavy loss due to disruption of in supply of electricity to his tube-well because of the heavier load attached to the new transformer installed in place of the one owned by him and installed earlier under the SFS scheme. Because of this, the electric motor did not work properly and as such there was loss to the crops of the petitioner of the order of Rs. 10,000 per acre. A consumer complaint, therefore, came to be filed by the petitioner before the District Forum praying for direction to the respondents to restore the transformer which was earlier installed under the SFS scheme and also payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000 and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000 to the petitioner/complaint by the OPs/respondents. On being noticed, the respondents filed their written statement before the District Forum in which it was admitted that the connection to the petitioner was released on priority under the SFS scheme for which a 25 KVA transformer paid for by the petitioner, was installed. This transformer, however, came to be replaced by 63 KVA transformer because the load of the village Rora was much more and hence it was decided to change/augment the capacity of the transformer in the best interests of the consumers, including the petitioner. No amount whatsoever was charged at the time of replacement/augmentation of the transformer and there was no deficiency in the supply of the electricity to the complainant. It was categorically stated, in the written statement by the OPs/respondents that there was absolutely no interruption in the electricity supply to the complainant's tube-well except the regular cuts and hence any loss caused to the complainant on account such replacement/augmentation was denied.

(2.) On consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the material placed before it, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the petitioner and directed the respondents to restore the old transformer earlier installed by the petitioner under SFS scheme at the old place and also to pay cost of Rs. 3,000 to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the OPs/respondents filed an appeal before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('State Commission', for short) challenging the order of the District Forum. The appeal of the respondents was allowed by the State Commission vide its order dated 30.5.2011 thereby setting aside the order of the District Forum. In these circumstances, the complainant/petitioner has now approached this Commission challenging this order of the State Commission through the present revision petition.

(3.) We have heard Mr. S.C.Paul, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. No specific instance or detail of the alleged interruptions in the power supply or deficiency in service as a sequel to the replacement/augmentation of the capacity of the earlier transformer has been furnished by the petitioner. The only point which has been contended by the learned Counsel is that since the 25 KVA transformer was installed at the expense of the petitioner, the same could not be changed by another transformer which allegedly caused deficiency in service regarding the supply of power to the petitioner's tubewell. The complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum, a copy of which is placed on record, also does not give any instance of interruption/disturbance in the supply of electricity which could be linked to the replacement of the transformer. The State Commission, while considering the appeal of the petitioner, has taken pains to examine the complaint of the petitioner in the light of the conditions of the scheme under which the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 62,500 to the respondents for release of connection to his tubewell on priority by installing a 25 KVA transformer. Not finding any deficiency on the part of the respondents, the State Commission has reversed the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal of the respondents. While setting aside the order of the District Forum, the State Commission has recorded the following reasons in support of its impugned order.