DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.203 of 18.5.2007<br /> Decided on: 5.2.2008<br /> Joginder Singh aged about 50 years, son of Sh.Santa Singh, R/o Village Dera Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar (Gulhar), Teh.Patran, District Patiala.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board ,The Mall, Patiala,through its<br /> Secretary.<br /> 2. S.D.O.,D.S.Sub-Division,Punjab State Electricity<br /> Board,Shatrana,Tehsil Patran & District Patiala.<br /> 3. Sh.Hazoor Singh son of Sh.Gurbaksh Singh (Nambardar),R/o Village <br /> Dera Hoti Pur,Tehsil Moonak,District Patiala.<br /> <br /> <br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur,Member<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.B.M.Singh,adv.<br /> For opposite parties Smt.Puja Puri,adv.<br /> No.1&2<br /> For opposite party No.3: Exparte.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH,PRESIDENT<br /> Complainant, Joginder Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That on 25.5.1995, the complainant purchased a piece of land situated at village Gular,Tehsil Patran,District Patiala from S/Sh.Malik Singh,Harbhajan Singh,Dilbagh Singh and Balkar Singh, all sons of Sh.Hazoor Singh along with electricity tube well connection bearing a/c No.NA 2261 (7.5 HP) duly installed in the premises of the said land. That the land and the tubewell connection in question are in the possession of complainant since the date he purchased the same. The complainant is using the supply of electricity against this account number since 22.5.1995 for watering the crops and is paying the energy charges for the consumption of the energy on the said connection regularly as applicable as per rules being beneficiary and nothing is pending against him.That the above tubewell connection was/is in the name of Hazoor Singh son of Gurbaksh Singh,R/o village Dera Hoti Pur,District Patiala, opposite party No.3, who is the father of the sellers, who sold the above land in favour of the complainant along with the tubewell connection. That as the above stated tubewell connection bearing a/c No.NA-2261(7.5 HP) was running in the name of Sh.Hazoor Singh-opposite party No.3 as such the said Sh.Hazoor Singh-opposite party No.3 executed a separate affidavit dated 22.5.1995 for transfer of the above stated connection in favour of the complainant.That the complainant filed requisite papers, applications alongwith affidavit of Sh.Hazoora Singh in the office of opposite parties to transfer the above said tubewell connection in the name of the complainant after fulfilling all the formalities. That the complainant made repeated request to the opposite parties in person as well as in writing to transfer the tubewell connection in the name of the complainant to the opposite party No.2, but the same has not been transferred in the name of the complainant till date on one pretext or the other by the opposite party No.2.Further the opposite party No.2 not to change the name of the tubewell connection in favour of the complainant with some ulterior motive and malafide intention just to harass and extract money from the complainant.That a legal notice from Sh.Sanu Bansal,adv. ,Tehsil Compext Patran, has also been served upon the opposite parties No.2&3 both dated 21.6.2006 requesting therein to transfer the tubewell connection in favour of the complainant with immediate effect but they have not given any heed thereto. That the action of the opposite parties not to transfer the above stated tubewell connection in favour of the complainant is illegal, ultravires, against the rules and regulations without jurisdictions is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant has suffered huge loss and mental agony. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1&2 appeared through Smt.Puja Puri,adv. and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. Whereas opposite party No.3 who was directed to appear in the Forum on 3.7.2007 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte on 3.7.2007.<br /> 4. In the written reply filed by opposite parties No.1&2 it is alleged that the complainant has not hired any service from the Board. There is no relationship of the complainant and Board in any manner. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer as defined under the Act. The Board has no information or knowledge that the complainant has purchased any land from Malik Singh ,Harbjhajan Singh,Dilbagh Singh and Balkar Singh sons of Hazoor Singh. The complainant has no right to use the electricity from the said connection as there is no relationship of the complainant with the board in any manner. In case he is caught of committing the malpractice i.e. of using the supply from the said connection then the board shall take the action against its consumer for illegally allowing a person to use the electricity supply as no consumer has any right to sell the electricity. That the board is not in possession of any document from which it can be concluded that the complainant is using the electricity supply of the connection in dispute. The connection is in the name of Lal Singh at present, who has got shifted the connection from village Gular to village kularan,Earlier to it the connection was in the name of Hazoor Singh, who has executed an affidavit in favour of Lal Singh for shifting the connection and for making the change of name of the connection in the name of Lal Singh. It is denied that the complainant is depositing any charges of electricity. However, it is an admitted fact that earlier to shifting the connection and for change of name of the connection from Hazoor Singh to Lal Singh, the connection was in the name of Hazoor Singh. The said Hazoor Singh had filed an affidavit in the concerned office of the board in favour of Lal Singh for allowing the change of name and shifting of the connection from village Gular to village Kularan in the name of Lal Singh. The board after completing all the conditions and formalities and after getting the amount deposited from Lal Singh has allowed the change of site of the connection in the name of Lal Singh. The alleged persons namely Malik Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Dilbagh Singh and Balkar Singh have no interest in the ownership in any manner as the connection was in the name of Hazoor Singh, who had executed an affidavit for change of name of the connection and for change of site of the connection in favour of Lal Singh. At no stage, the complainant has ever submitted the alleged affidavit of Hazoor Singh alongwith application form for change of name of the connection from his name to the name of the complainant. It is denied that the complainant has ever filed any paper with the concerned office of the board for the change of name of the connection in his name. No formality was ever complied and the question of such compliance does not arise as the complainant has never applied in the concerned office of the board for change of name of the connection. There is no application or request of the complainant for change of name from Hazoor Singh to Lal Singh, so the question of considering the request of complainant for change of name does not arise at all. Even the connection has already been changed in the name of Lal Singh as per request/affidavit of Hazoor Singh. The complainant has manipulated the story to file the false complaint against the board. There was no malafide intention of the board or the alleged ulterior motive against the complainant. The allegations are absolutely false. No action of the board is illegal in any manner. The board has acted as per rules. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged. The complainant has not suffered any loss. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied. The plea that complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act has also been taken and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 5. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.C1, copy of affidavit dated 21.6.2006 of Joginder Singh,Ex.C2, indemnity bond,Ex.C3, copy of agreement,Ex.C4, copy of agreement ,Ex.C5,copy of affidavit of Hazoor Singh,Ex.C6, copy of checking report,Ex.C7, copy of legal notice,Ex.C8 and copy of legal notice to Hazoor Singh,Ex.C9.<br /> 6. In rebuttal the opposite parties No.1&2 tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.R1 of Ashok Kumar,SDO, copy of legal notice dated 10.7.2007,Ex.R2, copy of affidavit of Lal Singh dated 31.5.2005,Ex.R3, affidavit of Kashmir Singh dated 31.5.2005,mEx.R4,copy of affidavit of Hazoor Singh dated 31.5.2005,Ex.R5,copy of affidavit of Hazoor Singh dated 31.5.2005,Ex.R6, copy of indemnity bond,Ex.R7, copy of letter dated 24.3.2006,Ex.R8, copy of letter dated 9.9.2005,Ex.R9, copy of letter dated 4.4.2006,Ex.R10, copy of jamabandi,Ex.R11 and copy of advertisement of newspaper,Ex.R12.<br /> 7. The parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 8. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that on 25.5.2006 the complainant purchased a piece of land situated in village Gular from Malik Singh,Harbhajan Singh,Dilbagh Singh and Balkar Singh sons of Hazoor Singh alongwith electricity tubewell connection bearing account No.NA 2261(&.5 HP) dully installed in the premises of the said land. He has further contended that the land and tubewell connection in question are in possession of the complainant since the date he purchased the same. The complainant is using the supply of electricity against this account number since 22.5.1995 for watering the crops and is paying the energy charges for the consumption of the energy on the said connection regularly as applicable as per rules being beneficiary and nothing is pending against him. He has further contended that the tubewell connection is in the name of Hazoor Singh s/o Gurbaksh Singh who sold the land in favour of the complainant alongwith tubewell connection. He has further contended that Hazoor Singh executed a separate affidavit dated 22.5.1995 for transfer of the connection in favour of the complainant. The complainant filed requisite papers alongwith affidavit of Hazoor Singh in the office of opposite parties to transfer the said tubewell connection in his name and that in spite of repeated requests the same has not been transferred in the name of the complainant.<br /> 9. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1&2 has contended that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act. The complainant has not hired any service from the board. There is no relationship of the complainant with the board in any manner i.e. consumer and supplier. She has further contended that the connection was originally in the name of Hazoor Singh who has transferred the same in the name of Lal Singh by completing all the formalities. She has further contended that Lal Singh is the consumer of board and Hazoor Singh is seized to be the consumer of the Board. She has further contended that Hazoor Singh has filed an affidavit in the office of Board in favour of Lal Singh vide which it was stated by Hazoor Singh that he has no objection in case the connection is transferred in the name of Lal Singh.Lal Singh had deposited the requisite fee in the office of the board and had also made the compliance of the demand notice which was issued to him in lieu of his application for change of name. So Lal Singh is the consumer of the Board. The complainant has no concern with the connection in any manner. She has further contended that connection is the property of the board. No one can transfer the same to the other person without the consent of the board. So the complainant has no right to claim the ownership of the said connection. The connection has no concern with the land. The ownership of the land does not give any right to the others to claim the ownership of the connection also.<br /> 10. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 11. Admittedly the connection is in the name of Lal Singh at present who has got shifted the connection from village Gular to village Kularan.It is also admitted that earlier to it the connection was in the name of Hazoor Singh who had executed an affidavit in favour of Lal Singh for shifting the connection and for making the change of name of connection in the name of Lal Singh. The perusal of the affidavit,Ex.R5 of Hazoor Singh s/o Gurbaksh Singh shows that he filed the affidavit wherein he gave his consent for shifting the connection in the name of Lal Singh s/0 Guzar Singh. The indemnity bond,Ex.R7, was executed by said Lal Singh. So the disputed connection stands changed in the name of Lal Singh from the name of Hazoor Singh and has already been shifted from village Gular to village Kularan.The complainant as such has not hired any service from the board. There is no relationship of the complainant and the board in any manner. There is no relationship of consumer and supplier. So the complainant is not a consumer under the Act.<br /> 12. In view of our above discussion we hold that the complaint is without any merit. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint merit dismissal and is dismissed accordingly. However, under the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:5.2.2008.<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />