BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Amrik Singh Garcha, through his GPA, Smt.Suman, r/o # 1833, Sector 49-B, Nirwana Co-op, Society, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1]Chief Engineer, Electricity Dept. UT, Secretariat, Sector – 9, Chandigarh.

2]Superintendent Engineer, Electricity Dept. UT, Secretariat, Sector – 9, Chandigarh.

3]Executive Engineer, Electricity Dept. UT, Sector -19-B, Chandigarh

4]Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Dept. UT, Sector -20, Chandigarh

                                  ……Opposite parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Vikas Mor, Adv. for complainant

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                The present complaint was filed by Smt. Suman on behalf of the complainant claiming to be his General Attorney. It was alleged that the complainant was allotted house no.1833 in Nirwana Cooperative Society, Chandigarh, that she has paid all the dues with regard to the said house and the N.O.C. was also issued to her.  She was continuing in possession of the property when one Rajesh Goyal claimed to be its owner upon which she filed a Civil Suit before the Civil Court.  She claims to have applied to the OPs for electricity connection which was released in the name of the complainant but the said electricity connection was disconnected by the OPs. She made applications and complaints to the OPs to grant the electricity connection but they did not.  She therefore filed the present complaint against the OPs to release the electricity connection and also pay compensation for harassment and mental torture.

2.             We have heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the complainant and have perused the record as to whether the complaint should be admitted for regular hearing or not.

3.             The complainant had attached with the complaint a copy of the plaint filed by the complainant before the Civil Court but did not attach the copy of the order passed by the Civil Court. We therefore asked her to file the copy of order also, which has been filed by the complainant. The contention of the complainant is that one Rajesh Goyal started claiming the ownership of the flat in dispute upon which she filed the Civil Suit. In the said Civil Suit she had moved an application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC claiming temporary injunction against Rajesh Goyal and others.  The said application was decided by the Court of Mrs. Paramjit Kaur, Civil Judge, Chandigarh, vide the order dated 14.09.09. The facts which came to the notice in the said case are startling.  In the Civil Suit the Nirwana Cooperative House Building (First) Society Limited, Chandigarh, produced the record showing that flat no.1833 was infact allotted to Rajeev Goyal and not to the complainant.  Their contention was that the complainant got another allotment letter forcibly signed from the Secretary of the Society by giving threats to him.  The said allotment letter which is now produced by the complainant as annexure P-3 was said to be a fake allotment letter procured by the plaintiff/complainant.  It was also reported that the members of the management committee made complaints against the complainant to the police and to Registrar of the Cooperative Societies against the anti social activities of the husband of Smt. Suman who has filed the present complaint before this Forum. The cooperative society also cancelled the member ship of the plaintiff/complainant by publishing in daily newspaper Indian Express, against which the complainant had filed an appeal.  However during the proceedings of the said appeal a compromise was arrived at between the parties whereby the appeal was withdrawn and the membership of the complainant/plaintiff was restored.  The Learned Trial Court held that prima facie it was made out that flat no 1833 was allotted to defendant no. 2 i.e.Rajesh Goyal who is admittedly an NRI and when he came to know that the complainant have taken the possession of his flat, he also made a complaint to the police.  The management committee also recommended to lodge the police complaint against Mohinder Singh husband of Smt. Suman. It was also noticed that the complainant was infact allotted flat no. 1802 as per the draw of the scheme and when on compassionate ground his membership was restored he agreed to own it and the GPA of the complainant namely Smt.Suman was allowed to get the said flat. The complainant therefore was found to be having no right or title to house no. 1833 as claimed by her through this complaint.  It was held by the Learned Civil Court that when the complainant has no right or title to the property in dispute there was no question of issue of injunction in favour of the complainant/plaintiff and against the defendants. The application moved by the complainant for temporary injunction was therefore dismissed. It wad due to these adverse findings recorded by the Learned Trial Court that the complainant did not attach the copy of the order alongwith the complaint so that the true facts did not come to the notice of this Forum. However, since the complainant is liable to vacate the premises and shift to flat allotted to the complainant i.e. flat no.1802, she has no right to get the electricity connection to the house which belongs to somebody else.

4.             It is also argued by the Learned Counsel for the complainant that the possession of the complainant over the house in dispute is proved and the electricity connection was already granted by the OPs and therefore the same should be continued till she remains in occupation of this house.  We do not find any merit in this argument also. The complaint has no right or title to continue in occupation of the house in dispute, therefore a person in illegal possession of the house cannot be permitted the electricity connection as against the consent of the owner, thereof. It is yet another attempt to forcibly occupy the property of the NRI who has not even been made a party to this complaint.

5.             There is yet another reason as to why the complainant should not be admitted. A Civil Suit is already pending before the Civil Court in which the rights and title of the complainant/plaintiff to the house in dispute is to be decided. The relief which is sought through this Forum can well be obtained in the said suit also.  It is necessary in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation that this relief is claimed by the complainant in the said suit if she so likes. We do not intend to start parallel proceedings before this Forum.

6.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that it would not be proper to admit the complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

              Both the parties be informed accordingly.