Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/96/2016

Sukhpal Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman/Secretry ,Pb.S.Power Corp.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajwant. Singh

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 96 of 2016

                                                    Date of institution : 13.10.2016                                       

                                                      Date of decision    : 24.11.2017

Sukhpal Kaur aged about 40 years W/o Davinder Kumar resident of Mohalla Gilzian ward No.6, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman/Secretary The Mall Patiala.
2. Senior Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Division Sirhind G.T.Road Sirhind District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Urban, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
4. Junior Engineer Sh. Rupinder Surjan, P.S.P.C.L. Bassi Pathana District Fatehgarh Sahib.
5. Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Girdari Lal resident of Mohalla Gilzian ward No.6 Bassi Pathana District Fatehgarh Sahib.

 

 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. Quorum  

          Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

             Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :         Sh. Rajmat Singh, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.    

                      Sh.M.P.S. Batra, Adv.Cl. for OPs No.1 to 4.

                      Sh. Sovik Joshi, Adv.Cl. for OP No.5.

 

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

 

                     Complainant, Sukhpal Kaur aged about 40 years W/o Davinder Kumar resident of Mohalla Gilzian ward No.6, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.              The complainant purchased a house along with electricity connection bearing A/c No. K53 KK 270554M from OP No.5, vide sale deed dated 28.07.2016, for a total consideration of Rs.5 lakhs. Thereafter, OP No.5 filed a false complaint with OP No.3 alleging that the complainant got installed a meter bearing A/c No.270554 M in his house. But the same had already been installed in the house, which was sold by OP No.5 to the complainant on 28.07.2016. As per report of OP No.3 the electric connection in the house of the complainant is running in the name of Laxmi Chand( who expired about 20 year ago) and OP No.5 had been using the electric connection. It shows that electric connection was installed in the property, which was sold by OP No.5 to the complainant. The said electric connection has been disconnected by the OPs No.1 to 4 illegally and forcible, which is deficiency in service on their part. The OPs cannot disconnect the electric connection, which is duly sanctioned, arbitrarily and without any written notice to the party in possession. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to restore the electricity connection in question.  

3.              The complaint is contest by the OPs. OPs No.1 to 4 in their written reply raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is beyond the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act; the complainant has no legal right or cause of action to file the present complaint and the same is misuse of process of law;  the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint as he has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint, OPs No.1 to 4 stated that as per the record of PSPCL, sub division Bassi Pathanan Urban, OP No.5 filed application on dated 11.08.2016 to restrain to remove electricity meter of the applicant and again on 17.08.2016 he filed application against complainant and Devinder Kumar husband of the complainant, regarding change of place of his electricity meter account No.K53KK270554 with the help of private persons and without the approval of PSPCL.  The SDO marked the application to Sh. Rupinder Singh, JE to visit the spot and report. The said JE along with SDO visited the spot and found that the electric connection in dispute is running in the name of Laxmi Chand and the said connection was used by Ashok Kumar. The applicant Ashok Kumar also furnished receipt of bills and recommendation for taking further action against complainant and her husband, who changed the place of electricity meter without taking permission from the PSPCL.  The officials of the PSPCL reinstall the meter at its previous place. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs No. 1 to 4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.              In reply to complaint, OP No.5 also raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable in its present form; the complainant has no legal right or cause of action to file the present complaint;  the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. As regards the facts of the complaint, OP No.5 stated that at the time of execution of registered sale deed, the property of OP No.5 is in destructive condition and there was no electric meter or electric connection in the same. The husband of the complainant wants to encroach upon the property of Laxmi Chand by way of claiming the rights over the electric meter of Laxmi Chand, deceased. The complainant has each and every right to apply for the new electric connection in her name after the execution of the sale deed but has no right to transfer the electric meter of Laxmi Chand. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.5 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.              In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence copy of sale deed Ex. C-1, copy of site plan Ex. C-2, copy of application under RTI Act Ex. C-3, copy of application dated 16.08.2016 Ex. C-4, copy of photograph Ex. C-5, her affidavit Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence.  In rebuttal, OPs No. 1 to 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurjeet Singh SDO, PSPCL Ex. OP-1, certified copies of documents Ex. OP-2 to OP-4 and closed the evidence.

6.              The Ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded that OP No.5 sold the property in question along with electric connection to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.5 lakh and the sale deed was executed on 28.07.2016. However, Sh. Ashok Kumar, OP No.5, moved a false application dated 16.08.2016 to OP No.3 stating that the complainant had got installed the said meter bearing A/c No. 270554 M in her house, which was later on disconnected by OP No.3. The Ld. counsel further stated that the OP No.5 had sold the property alonwith electricity meter to Sukhpal Kaur, complainant, and hence complaint be accepted.

7.              The Ld. counsel for OPs No.1 to 4 argued that OP No.3 disconnected the connection as the meter bearing A/c No.270554 M was in the name of Laxmi Chand and not in the name of the complainant Sukhpal Kaur. He further argued that the electric meter connection cannot be sold out by the landlord and it has to be got transferred from the name of landlord to the name of purchaser from OPs No.1 to 4. Hence, there is no illegality committed by OPs No.1 to 4.

8.              The Ld. counsel for OP No.5 also argued on similar lines as the Ld. counsel for OPs No.1 to 4.

9.              After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties, the oral arguments and written submissions, we find force in the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the OPs as electric meter connection cannot be sold out by the landlord and it has to be transferred in accordance with the rules and regulations of the PSPCL. Accordingly, the present complaint is disposed off with a direction to the complainant to get the meter, if any, in the property running in the name of seller of property Ashok Kumar opposite party no.5, transferred in her name and if it is not, a new meter may be got installed by the PSPCL under the prevalent rules. Parties to bear cost on their own.

9.                 The arguments were heard on 17.11.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 Pronounced

 Dated:24.11.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)                 

 President

 

(Inder Jit)                      

Member