<br /> Present: Sh. Sandeep Khosla counsel for complainant with complainant<br /> Sh. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> DHARAM SINGH PRESIDENT<br /> Soni alias Sonia complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to restore the electric connection in the premises of the complainant and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in her complaint that she applied for electric connection in her house situated at Street No. 24/25, Dogar Basti, Faridkot vide receipt No. D-80703 dated 17.1.2007. The file of new electric connection of the complainant was pending for the last two months but the connection has not been issued so far. The complainant has come to know that one Chhinder Pal Kaur had also applied for new electric connection in her name of the same property belonging to the complainant. The complainant serve a notice to the opposite parties on 14.3.2007 through registered A.D. On 18.3.2007 at about 12.00 noon the electric meter was installed and the connection was issued to the complainant. The connection started from 18.3.2007 and it worked till about 10.00 A.M. of 21.3.2007. On 21.3.2007 at about 10.00 A.M. the opposite parties sent their employees and they removed the electric meter and stopped the electric connection in the premises of the complainant. The opposite parties have no right to stop the connection allotted to the complainant. They removed the meter without any reason and cause. The opposite parties at the instance of Chhinder Pal Kaur due to some extraneous reason stopped the connection. The objection of third party is frivolous and baseless. The sale deed is sham and fictitious to defeat the rights of the complainant and sale deed has been executed by husband in favour of wife without consideration and is itself sufficient to show that it is a sham document. Jaswant Singh could not transfer better title than he himself had. Jaswant Singh is bound by agreement to sell and so his wife is also bound by the agreement to sell. The civil cases are pending between the parties in the Court of Sh. B.R. Garg and Sh. Balwant Singh at Faridkot. The removal of meter and stoppage of electric connection is not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.3.2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. Rajneesh Garg Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the opposite parties have constituted the Dispute Settlement Committees so as to settle the disputes arising between the parties, but the present complainant has not put his case before the said committee, so the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties as she does not fall in the definition of consumer. The complaint has not been properly framed. Proper parties have not been made, so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits the opposite parties submitted that the electric connection are to be released according to the seniority list maintained by the opposite party and as per the rules and regulations of the opposite parties. One Chhinder Pal Kaur wife of Jaswant Singh resident of Dogar Basti, Gali No. 1, had also moved the application dated 14.3.2007 alleging that she is the owner of the property as she has purchased the same vide sale deed dated 1.3.2007. She further made representation that one Sonia d/o Ram Singh has taken the possession of the property illegally. She further made the representation that the electricity of the complainant should not be released, as the dispute arose between the parties so the opposite parties did not want to enter into litigation and did not want to invite any trouble, so the connection of the complainant could not be released. No electricity connection was ever released or installed to the complainant and as the connection was never released so there is no connection of it being working till 10.00 A.M. of 21.3.2007. As no connection was ever released so there is no question of removing the electric meter. There was no connection was released so the question of disconnecting the same does not arise. There is no high handedness on the part of the opposite parties. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint be dismissed with special costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 and closed her evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Charanjit Singh Ex.R-1, copy of letter dated 20.3.2007 Ex.R-2, copy of application Ex.R-3, copy of sale deed Ex.R-4, copy of Jamabandi Ex.R-5 and closed their evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the opposite parties are bound to release electric connection to the complainant in her house situated in Street No. 24/25, Dogar Basti, Faridkot.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties. Chhinder Pal Kaur wife of Jaswant Singh being owner of the house vide sale deed dated 1.3.2007 have raised objection with regard to releasing of the connection to the complainant. So the complainant is not entitled for release of electric connection. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the affidavit Ex.R-1 of Charanjit Singh Maan it is made out that the opposite parties have not released electric connection in the name of the complainant, as owner of the house Chhinder Pal Kaur has moved an application Ex.R-3 to the opposite parties accompanied with the sale deed Ex.R-4 to the effect that the electric connection should not be released in the name of the complainant as Chhinder Pal Kaur is the owner of the house. The opposite parties vide letter Ex.R-2 have informed the complainant in this regard. <br /> 11. Since the complainant is not owner of the house in question so she is not entitled for release of the electric connection. In case any recovery is to be effected from the premises in which electric connection is released then the opposite parties shall not be able to release the same as the complainant is not owner of the premises in which electric connection is sought to be released. Even there are instructions from the electricity board with regard to release of electric connection to a person who is owner or landlord of the premises. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. <br /> 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant being devoid of merits is dismissed. There is no order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 24.1.2008<br />