DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 49 of 13-02-2008<br /> Decided on : 05-06-2008 <br /> <br /> 1.Malkiat Singh aged about 50 years<br /> 2.Daljit Singh aged about 45 years<br /> Sons of Late Sh. Joginder Singh R/o Village Bibi Wala, District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainants<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary<br /> 2.A.E.E./S.D.O. Cantt. Sub Division, P.S.E.B. Bathinda Cantt.<br /> 3.Lakhvir Singh<br /> 4.Jaspal Singh S/o Inder Singh R/o Bibiwala District Bathinda.<br /> 5.Balkar singh S/o Inder Singh R/o House No. 1267, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala.<br /> .... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Abhey Singla, Advocate, for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.<br /> Sh. Sandeep Baghla, Advocate, for opposite party No. 3.<br /> Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate, for opposite parties No. 4 & 5.<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by the complainants seeking directions from this Forum to the opposite parties to restore the load of electricity surrendered by Sh. Inder Singh or to transfer the existing connection of 7.5 KW in their names; pay Rs. 95,000/- as compensation to them as has been detailed in its para No. 21 & 22 besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Succinctly put the version of the complainant is that their father Sh. Joginder Singh and the father of opposite party No. 3 to 5 namely Sh Inder Singh were real brothers. They had joint family. Land measuring 42 Kanals 10 Marlas situated in the revenue limits of village Bibiwala Tehsil Bathinda was jointly owned by them. Land was not partitioned. They (S/Sh. Joginder Singh and Inder Singh) both had jointly applied for electricity connection for motor for running tubewell vide application No. 60 dated 7.7.08. Estimate of an amount of Rs. 12,428.60 was prepared by the Executive Engineer of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. It was deposited by them. Electricity Connection bearing A/c No. AP-59 having load of 15.020 KW was released. In the year 1971 meter was burnt. Both of them had deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 100/- vide receipt No. 01446 dated 16.2.71 issued from Book No. 43. Connection was later on converted into A/c No. AP-82. Both the connection holders were using the electricity jointly during their life time. Sh. Joginder Singh has since died on 15.1.02 leaving behind them as his sole legal heirs. They have inherited his estate including the electricity connection. Sh. Inder Singh has since died on 8.6.07 leaving opposite parties No. 3 to 5 as his legal heirs and they have inherited his estate. They allege that opposite parties No. 3 to 5 with their ulterior motive have started refraining them from using the tubewell connection on the pretext that they have become owners/consumers of the connection as it stands in the name of their father Sh. Inder Singh. When matter was brought to the notice of opposite party No. 1 & 2, it was orally conveyed that load of the connection was got reduced by Sh. Inder Singh from 15 K.W. to 7.5 KW and connection of remaining load of 7.5 KW was got transferred by him in his name alone. Load of 7.5 KW pertaining to Sh. Joginder Singh was surrendered. Accordingly connection is in the name of Sh. Inder Singh alone. They allege that act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal, null and void and without any jurisdiction. Sh. Joginder Singh during his life time and after him never gave consent either orally or in writing for surrendering load from 15 K.W. to 7.5 K.W. If Sh. Inder Singh or opposite parties No. 3 to 5 have given such writing, they are not bound by it. Sh. Inder Singh was competent to deal with load of 7.5 K.W. He has nothing do to with the share of Sh. Joginder Singh. It is further averred by them that the share in the electricity connection concerning Sh. Joginder Singh is intact. Request was made by them (complainants) to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to restore the load of 7.5 KW or transfer the existing load of 7.5 KW in their names, but they refused. They allege that they are unable to irrigate their land and have suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. They have undergone mental tension, harassment and botheration due to the adamant attitude of the opposite parties for which they are entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. They have also paid fee to the counsel and spent amount towards miscellaneous expenses i.e. typing, postal order, photostat and in visiting Bathinda on each and every hearing for which they are entitled to Rs. 25,000/-.<br /> 3. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is hopelessly barred by time ; complainants are not consumers; complicated questions of law and facts are involved which require elaborate oral as well as documentary evidence which can be taken only in Civil Court and as such, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainants have not come with clean hands; similar complaint was earlier flied which was withdrawn and they are estopped from filing the complaint by their act and conduct. On merits, they admit that S/Sh. Joginder and Inder Singh were real brothers and they were owning land measuring 42 kanals 10 marlas in the revenue limits of village Bibiwala. They admit that complainants are the sons of Sh. Joginder Singh whereas opposite parties No. 3 to 5 are the issues of Sh. Inder Singh. Both S/Sh. Joginder Singh and Inder Singh had applied for electricity connection for running 15.20 K.W. motor. Their application was accepted and connection was released in their names bearing A/c No. AP-59. Sh. Inder Singh had moved application for reduction of load of 15 K.W. to 7.5 KW. Application was moved by him alone. There was no request on behalf of Sh. Joginder Singh. Application was accepted and new agreement was executed. After following due procedure, load was reduced to 7.5 KW and new connection No. AP-82 was released in his name with sanctioned load of 7.40 KW. Initially S/Sh. Joginder Singh and Inder Singh had deposited a sum of Rs. 12,428.60. After connection was allotted in the name of Sh. Inder Singh alone, he was using it. Sh Joginder Singh has died on 15.1.02. They deny for want of knowledge that they are his only legal heirs. Sh. Joginder Singh and after his death, complainants were well aware of the fact that connection is in the name of Sh. Inder Singh and load was got reduced by him and that new agreement was also executed. They deny that complainants are availing their services for consideration or they are their consumers. Sh. Inder Singh has died on 8.6.07 and opposite parties No. 3 to 5 are his legal heirs. Connection was changed in the name of Sh. Inder Singh during the life time of Sh. Joginder Singh and with his consent. This is the no reason as to why Sh. Joginder Singh who lived for more than 7 years after allotment of connection in the name of Sh. Joginder Singh alone kept mum for such a long time. When Sh. Joginder Singh did not raise any objection to the release of connection, complainants have no right to challenge the connection in the name of Sh. Inder Singh alone after 13 years. Complainants are estopped from raising such objection. Since 1995 electricity bills are being issued in the name of Sh. Inder Singh and they were being deposited by him. Even after the death of Sh. Joginder Singh, complainants kept mum for about 5 years. After 12-13 years, they have no right to claim any benefit. They deny that there is any connivance between them and the opposite parties No. 3 to 5. They do not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. Opposite party No. 3 filed separate reply of the complaint with the legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainants are not consumers; complaint is hopelessly barred by time; intricate and contentious questions of facts and law are involved which requires extrinsic oral and voluminous documentary evidence and as such, the complaint cannot be decided by this Forum in its summary jurisdiction; nature of the relief sought is beyond the ambit and scope of the exercise of jurisdiction of this Forum; complainant have not approached this Forum with clean hands; they are estopped from filing the complaint by their act and conduct; since earlier complaint was got dismissed as withdrawn on 7.2.08, this complaint is not maintainable; complaint does not disclose any cause of action and it is false and frivolous. He denies that S/Sh. Joginder and Inder Singh were holding joint land. He admits that he is the son of Sh. Inder Singh. He does not admit that amount for electricity connection was deposited by S/Sh. Joginder Singh and Inder Singh in 1966. To the contrary, their plea is that amount was deposited by Sh. Inder Singh. He denies that meter had burnt and fee was deposited jointly by S/Sh. Inder Singh and joginder singh. There was no alleged connection No. AP-59. Connection No. AP-82 was issued in favour of Sh. Inder Singh. Complainants have no concern with it. There is no such connection in existence as has been alleged by the complainants. He has inherited all the rights of user of electricity connection in the name of his father Sh. Inder Singh. During his life time, the amount of the bill was being deposited by him and thereafter he is depositing it. Connection No. AP-82 is running since 9.5.05. During his life time Sh. Joginder Singh never sought any relief concerning the load of 7.5 KW. Similarly complainants did not claim any relief in it after the death of Sh. Joginder Singh. There is an independent privity of contract between Sh. Inder Singh and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 with respect to connection No. AP-82. He denies his connivance with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 5. Separate reply has been submitted by opposite parties No. 4 & 5 stating that complainants have no cause of action; complaint is not maintainable against them; complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties; it is hopelessly barred by time; complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands and complaint is false and frivolous. They admit that S/Sh. Joginder Singh and Inder Singh were real brothers. There is denial that they had joint living and mess. Land was partitioned by metes and bounds by them during their life time and complainants, they and opposite party No. 3 are in possession of specific portions of the land. They admit that complainants are the sons of Sh. Joginder Singh whereas they and opposite party no. 3 are the issues of Sh. Inder Singh. Sh. Inder Singh had got separate tube well connection in the year 1994-95. Separate electric motor of the capacity of 7.40 K.W. was installed with new connection bearing No. AP-82. He was using this electricity connection exclusively without any interference from the complainants. They deny that electricity connection No. AP-82 was being used jointly by S/Sh. Joginder Singh and Inder Singh during their life time. Sh. Joginder Singh has died on 15.1.02. When he was not co-sharer in the electricity connection No. AP-82, the question of inheriting the electricity connection by the complainants does not arise. To the contrary, it was inherited by them and opposite party No. 3 after the death of Sh. Inder Singh. No load of tubewell connection was reduced from 15 KW to 7.5 KW at the time of separation of share of Sh. Inder Singh as he was having ½ share in the tubewell connection No. AP-59 of 15 KW. He had no connection with the remaining load. They paid no heed to his share during the life time. He remained alive for about 7-8 years after the electricity connection No. AP-82 was released. It is further averred by them that they have no objection if the load of the remaining share is restored by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to the complainant. They and opposite party No. 3 have been unncessarily impleaded.<br /> 6. In support of their averments contained in the complaint, complainants have produced in evidence two affidavits of complainant Malkit Singh (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), photocopy of order of this Forum (Ex.C-3), photocopies of demand notices (Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5), photocopy of conditions of supply (Ex. C-6), photocopy of Jamabandi (Ex. C-7), photocopy of Test Report (Ex. C-8), photocopy of estimate (Ex. C-9), photocopy of Service Connection Order (Ex. C-10), photocopy of receipt (Ex. C-11), photocopy of demand notice (Ex. C-12) and photocopies of Jamabandies (Ex. C-13 & Ex. C-14).<br /> 7. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 affidavit of Sh. Pritpal Singh, S.D.O (Ex. R-26), photocopy of A&A Form (Ex. R-27), photocopy of affidavit of Sh. Inder Singh (Ex. R-28), photocopy of another A&A Form (Ex. R-29), photocopies of letters (Ex. R-30 & Ex. R-31), photocopy of demand notice (Ex. R-32), photocopy of bill dated 22.6.04 (Ex. R-33), on behalf of opposite party No. 3 his affidavit (Ex. R-1), photocopies of payment receipts and bills (Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-24), photocopy of pass book (Ex. R-25) and on behalf of opposite parties No. 4 & 5 photocopy of Test Report (Ex. R-34), photocopy of Treasury Challan Form (Ex. R-35), photocopy of bill (Ex. R-36) and affidavit of Sh. Jaspal Singh (Ex. R-37) have been tendered in evidence. <br /> 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties assail the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that complainants are not consumers. <br /> 10. Learned counsel for the complainants countered this argument by submitting that S/Sh. Joginder Singh and Inder Singh were real brothers. Complainants are the issues of Sh. Joginder Sngh whereas opposite parties No. 3 to 5 are the sons of Sh. Inder Singh. Electricity connection bearing A/c No. AP-59 was got released by S/Sh. Joginder Singh and Inder Singh and they continued depositing the requisite charges concerning that connection. Subsequently, Sh. Inder Singh got the load of electricity connection No. AP-59 reduced from 15 KW to 7.5 KW exclusively in his name and surrendered the remaining load to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 without the consent of his brother Sh. Joginder Singh. S/Sh. Joginder Singh and Inder Singh have expired on 15.1.02 and 8.6.07 respectively. Since complainants are the legal heirs of Sh. Joginder Singh who did not surrender the load of his share during his life time, complainants are consumers qua the opposite parties being his (Joginder Singh's) sons and beneficiaries of the connection. For this, he drew our attention to the documents Ex. C-4, Ex. C-9, Ex. C-11,. Ex. C-15, Ex. C-17, Ex. R-19, Ex. R-26 and Ex. R-28 to Ex. R-32. <br /> 11. We have considered the rival contentions. Consumer has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act which is reproduced as under :<br /> “Consumer” means any person who -<br /> (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; <br /> (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment,when such services are availed or with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.<br /> Explanation – For the purposes of this clause “Commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.” <br /> 12. Complaint in hand was presented before this Forum on 13.2.08. Material question for determination before this Forum is as to whether the complainants were the consumers qua the opposite parties on the day the complaint was preferred before it. Answer to our minds is in the negative. There is not an iota evidence on the record on the basis of which complainants can be termed as consumers qua opposite parties No. 3 to 5 within the ambit of the definition of consumer which has been reproduced above. If complainant have some controversy with them, they can get it settled by way of approaching the civil court in which their right can be determined/declared, if any. Question as to whether Sh. Joginder Singh gave the consent to Sh. Inder Singh for surrendering the load to the extent of 7.5 KW or not cannot be adjudicated by this Forum. Jurisdiction of this Forum is to determine deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. There is no quarrel about the fact that previously electricity connection AP-59 was released in favour of S/Sh. Joginder Singh and Inder Singh. Complainants admit in so many words that subsequently this electricity connection No. AP-59 was converted into A/c No. AP-82 and it is still continuing. Not to speak of this, they have gone to the extent of admitting that previously S/Sh. Joginder Singh and Inder Singh were enjoying the electricity facility jointly during their life time and after them, they are using it. Electricity connection No. AP-82 was released on 9.4.05 and that too in the name of Sh. Inder Singh alone. Other connection No. AP-59 which was existing in the names of S/Sh. Joginder Singh and Inder Singh came to an end when connection No. AP-82 was released in the name of Sh. Inder Singh. When electricity connection No. AP-59 is no more in existence since 1995 and another connection has come into force in the name of Sh. Inder Singh alone, complainants cannot be concluded consumers in their capacity as beneficiaries on the date of filing the complaint. So far as the remaining controversy as to under which circumstance, Sh. Inder Singh got the load reduced to 7.5 KW is a matter which does not fall within the purview of this Forum. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Uttam Singh & Sons Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board & Anr II(2006) CPJ 115 (NC).<br /> 13. In view of our foregoing discussion, this complaint before this Forum is not maintainable as complainants are not consumers qua the opposite parties. Accordingly it is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 14. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that complainants are at liberty to knock the door of the civil court or any other appropriate authority for the redressal of their grievances, if so advised and permitted by law.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 05-06-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.PhulinderPreet) <br /> Member<br /> 'iki' <br />