Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member and Suresh Chandra, Member
MOHINDER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2701 of 2011 from Order dated 30.5.2011 in Appeal No. 687 of 2006 of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Decided on : 30-04-2012
Mr. S.C. Paul and Ms. Anjana Mehra, Advocates, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
Under the Self Financing Scheme, the transformer installed becomes the property of the electricity board, and the electricity board has the authority to change the transformer with higher capacity in the best interests of the consumers without any extra cost to the consumer.
Headnote:
Transformer - Electricity Supply - Self Financing Scheme 1992, Circular No. 29/92, Circular No. 5/2001 - The court discussed the ownership of the transformer installed under the Self Financing Scheme, the rights of the consumer, and the authority of the electricity board to change the transformer for the best interests of the consumers. The court highlighted the provisions of the scheme, the charges payable by the consumer, and the conditions regarding the installation and ownership of the transformer. The court emphasized that the connections under the scheme are released on priority, and the transformer installed becomes the property of the electricity board. The court also noted that the electricity board had the right to change the transformer with higher capacity to serve the entire village without any extra cost to the consumer.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner received a tubewell connection under the Self Financing Scheme and installed a transformer at his own cost. The electricity board later replaced the transformer without notice, causing disruption in electricity supply and loss to the petitioner's crops. The petitioner filed a complaint seeking restoration of the old transformer and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum, stating that the electricity board was within its rights to change the transformer with higher capacity in the best interests of the consumers. The court found no deficiency in the service provided by the electricity board and dismissed the complaint.
Issues: Ownership of the transformer, authority of the electricity board to change the transformer, disruption in electricity supply, and loss suffered by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under the Self Financing Scheme, the transformer installed becomes the property of the electricity board. The electricity board had the right to change the transformer with higher capacity to serve the entire village without any extra cost to the consumer. The court found no evidence of interruption or disturbance in the electricity supply linked to the replacement of the transformer.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the decision of the State Commission and finding no legal infirmity in the impugned order.
ORDER
Suresh Chandra, Member - 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 repl
