Complainants Amrik Singh and Sandeep Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to RCO his connection and also to refund Rs.10,000/- which was paid by him(Amrik Singh) to the opposite parties for RCO and also to pay compensation Rs.1,00,000/- as harassment and loss of agricultural income and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to them.
2. The case of the complainants in brief is that their father namely Mohan Singh passed away on 19.4.1982 and during his life time he had a tubewell connection bearing No.E-703/AP of 7.1/2 BHP with opposite party and after the death of Mohan Singh the tubewell connection remained in his name and all the work was managed by the father of Mohan Singh i.e. Boor Singh. The complainants were minors and the father of Mohan Singh was illiterate, they did not know about the transfer of the said tubewell connection in their own name. They have further pleaded that on 9/11/1993 the father of Mohan Singh also passed away, the children of Mohan Singh were minors at about 13 years and the other of the children namely Charanjit Kaur also illiterate and did not know about the law and did not get transfered the said tubewell connection. The opposite party had cut the cable which supplies the power to tubewell in the year of 1995 without any reason and without informing and without giving any notice to them. The mother of the complainants issued letters to opposite party no.1 and copy of the same letter was sent to opposite party no.4 on 13.3.2003 and request the opposite party for restoration of the connection but on 2.6.2003 opposite party no.4 permanently disconnected the connection on account of non payment of electricity charges of Rs.3577/-. The opposite parties did not issue any bill/notice regarding this non payment of charges. Before the PDCO the tubewell connection in the year 1994-95 and even on the report submitted by the JE Balwant Singh dated 2.6.2003. The opposite party no.1 issued a circulate to President State Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab vide memo no.570/5739/SSM-286 dated 15.9.2004 for recovery of arrears from agriculture consumers One time settlement or for restoring the tubewell connection remained disconnected, but in the year of 2005 they un-rooted the power supply. Complainants used to visit the office of the opposite party but they did not do so. They have next pleaded that opposite party no.5 vide memo no.888 dated 21.5.2007 issued a letter to complainant no.1 and agreed to RCO the tubewell connection and demanding essential documents and to deposit the outstanding bill amounting to Rs.39,350/-. Complainants deposited Rs.10,000/- vide receipt no.485 on 18.9.2009 and promised to pay remaining amount in four equal installment. Even after depositing Rs.10,000/- opposite parties did not pay any attention to this matter. The opposite party no.1 was issued the letter vide memo no.19289 dated 13.4.2010 to opposite party no.6 regarding reminder of letter no.4198 dated 18.2.2010 to RCO their tubewell connection and for completing the formalities. Even correspondence between the opposite parties was continuing vide various letters. On 25.1.2013 a letter was issued by opposite party no.1 to complainant Amrik Singh vide memo no.129/TW-2/Gsp/Vol 2 dated 25.1.2013 in which opposite party no.6 flatly refused to RCO their tubewell. On 16.5.2014 they again sent letter to the opposite parties and requested them to the RCO the tubewell connection but the opposite party no.4 vide reply dated 13.6.2014 refused to do so. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainants had filed two complaints previously in this Hon’be Forum on the same cause of action and the last was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.4.2014. As such the present complaint on the same cause of action can not be filed and the same is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, it was admitted that a tubewell connection bearing account No.E-703 AP was installed in the name of Mohan Singh son of Sh.Boor Singh. Actually, the family of the complainants failed to deposit the consumption charges of this tubewell connection and this connection was disconnected in the year 1995 temporarily due to non payment of consumption charges amounting to Rs.3577/-. This connection has not been reconnected since its disconnection in the year 1995. Then later on this tubewell connection was permanently disconnected on 2.6.2003 vide PDCO No.06/63711. No separate notice was required to be served upon the complainants on 2.6.2003 for the permanent disconnection of this tubewell connection. The complainants deposited Rs.10,000/- with the opposite parties out of Rs.39,350/- which was the outstanding bill amount and the balance of this amount is still to be deposited. The Circular 47/2004 issued by Senior Officials of the opposite party department can not benefit to complainant in any manner whatsoever. When the premises of this tubewell connection was checked by the officials of opposite party department vide checking report No.34/626 dated 21.6.2012 and it was detected at the spot that the consumer was found running 5 BHP tubewell connection by affixing 4 core underground cable from 63 KVA Transformer Sawraj Singh as such he was found committing theft of electricity. An amount of Rs.57840/-was imposed upon him as penalty for this theft of electricity and a Memo No.393 dated 22.6.2012 for Rs.57840/- was served upon him. A copy of the same was sent to the SHO Anti Power Theft Police Station Verka and FIR No.300 has been lodged on 17.09.2012 against Amrik Singh son of Mohan Singh. It has been next submitted that no cause of action has accrued to the complainants to file this third complaint nor they had any right to send the letter on 16.5.2014 to RCO the connection disconnected since 1995 in the absence of real consumer who has since expired in the year 1982. The complainants never made any application for getting this tubewell connection transferred in their name within the stipulated period. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
- Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C29 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Lakhwinder Singh S.D.O. of the opposite parties has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 along with other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.
6. We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. From the pleadings and evidence on record we find that the complainants have claimed the RCO i.e., restoration of the Tube well Power Connection # E-703 that stands admittedly disconnected in the year 1995 and efforts for its restoration were undertaken in the year 2003, only. Apparently, that clearly bars the present complaint by limitation and thus the same faces dismissal on this score, itself. However, the OP service providers allege that the complainant have been illegally running the Tube well/power connection during all this time. Somehow, the RCO was recommended for issuance Ex.C10 & Ex.C17 in the year 2011 but in the meantime in June’2012 the complainants were caught running the Electric Motor at site through direct-stolen electricity power and one FIR # 300 (17.09.2012) was also lodged by the OP corporation against the present complainants. Under the circumstances, we find that the present dispute shall not fall under the ambit purview of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986 and thus we are not inclined to continue with the proceedings of the present complaint.
8. In the light of the all above, we do not see any acceptable merit (under the Act) in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with liberty to the complainant to approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction if he is so advised and if the law of limitation also permits him to do so. No orders as to its costs.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
July 06, 2015 Member.
*MK*
