Punjab

StateCommission

FA/13/342

Mohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.S.P.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Jaggi

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No. 342 of 2013

                                                           

                                    Date of institution: 25.3.2013  

                             Date of Decision:  27.2.2015

 

Mohan Singh aged about 63 years son of Sh. Mansha Singh, r/o Village Ballopur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. SDO Ghanaur, Sub Division No. 1, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Ghanaur, District Patiala.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

First Appeal against the order dated 26.2.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

    Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Sh. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate

          For the respondents        :         Sh. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 26.2.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.805          dated 23.12.2011 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.  

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondents/opposite parties(hereinafter referred as ‘the Ops’)  on the allegations that he is a consumer of the Ops having tubewell electricity connection bearing No. KMJ-3362 installed in his agricultural land at village Jand, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. The officials of the OP had been checking the electricity connection of the complainant regularly and found it OK. However, the complainant was surprised when he came to know from his Farm Labour that tubewell connection of his field was disconnected by the Op on 12.12.2011 at 11.00 a.m. despite the fact the farm labour of the complainant requested the employees of the Op not to disconnect this connection. Immediately the complainant rushed to OP No. 2 enquire about the reason for disconnection and staff of OP No. 2 refused to give any detail. No notice was ever served upon the complainant before disconnection of the tubewell connection. It was disconnected arbitrarily, without assigning any reason, which is against Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which has put great mental loss and loss to the crops of the complainant. Hence, the complaint with a direction to restore the tubewell connection of the complainant, pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                In the written reply filed by the Ops, preliminary objections have been taken that Forum did not have any jurisdiction to try the present complaint as allegations of fraud and mis-representation have been alleged by the complainant, therefore, the matter be referred to the Civil Court; the complaint filed by the complainant was false and had been filed by concealing the material facts and that the complainant had already availed the remedy before the Civil Court. On merits, it was stated that the complainant had fraudulently obtained the connection in dispute by submitting the Jamabandi in which he was not shown as owner. Even the mutation of the agricultural land in which he sought the agricultural connection was not sanctioned in his favour. Since the connection was obtained by fraud and mis-representation, therefore, it was got disconnected. The true facts are that Ram Singh, Sarpanch of Village Jandmangoli had filed the complaint before the concerned office of the Power Corporation on the allegations that the complainant had fraudulently obtained the connection in the priority category of Army Quota by mis-representing the fact and in collusion with the employee of the Power Corporation. The complainant is not resident of village Jandmangoli. Mutation of the land on the basis of agreement of exchange was rejected by the Revenue Authorities on 25.6.2007 and no mutation of the land comprising of Khasra Nos. 1068 & 1069 of Village Jandmangoli was sanctioned in favour of the complainant. The matter was referred to the Vigilance Cell of the Power Corporation and report was sought from the Revenue Authorities. The Revenue Authorities had confirmed the fact that the mutation as per the agreement of exchange of land was entered in the Jamabandi and was rejected on 25.6.2007. No mutation of the land of Khasra No. 1068 & 1069 situated at village Jandmangoli was sanctioned in favour of the complainant so far. The Office of the Director General, Vigilance Cell of Power Corporation had investigated the complaint and reported that the complainant had fraudulently obtained the tubewell connection and it was ordered to disconnect the connection and accordingly, the connection was disconnected, in compliance with the order so passed by the Power Corporation, therefore, the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

4.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

5.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence consumer record Exc. C-1, application/agreement Ex. C-2, agreement Ex. C-3, letter dt. 11.2.2011 Ex. C-4, statement of Balwant Singh Ex. C-5, statement of Hardial Singh Ex. C-6, letters of PSPCL Exs. C-7 to 11, Jamabandi Exs. C-12 & 13, Receipt challan Ex. C-14, letter dt. 5.3.07 Ex. C-15, complaint by Mohan Singh Ex. C-16, certificate of Discharge of Transfer Ex. C-17, agreement Ex. C-18, letter of Naib Tehsildar Ex. C-19, bill and photograph Exs. C-20 & 21 & 22, affidavit of Bant Singh Ex. C-23, affidavit of Gurpal Singh Ex. C-24, affidavit of Mohan Singh Ex. C-25, Jamabandi Exs. C-26 7 27. On the other hand, the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Suraj Parkash Sharma Ex. R-1, affidavit of Mohan Singh Ex. R-2, letter dt. 10.1.11 Ex. R-3, letter dt. 11.11.2011 Ex. R-4, letter of Naib Tehsildar Ex. R-5, letter dt. 28.11.2011 Ex. R-6, PDCO Ex. R-7, copy of suit Ex. R-8, copy of regulations Ex. R-9.

6.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint as the connection in dispute was obtained by the complainant by way of fraud and mis-representation as the mutation exchange of land in favour of the complainant was rejected on 25.6.2007 (Ex. C-19). Although the complainant got 100/2806 share in the land measuring 140 Bigha 6 Biswa from Gurmail Singh but he was not in possession of any specific Khasra Number of the land and unless the complainant got the possession of specific land, he could not ask for connection in his favour, therefore, disconnection of the connection of the complainant by the Ops was justified.

7.                In the appeal, it has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside as it has not been passed on appreciating the evidence on the record.

8.                A connection bearing A/c No. KMJ-3362 of connected load of 3.81 KW was released in favour of the complainant. Ex. C-1 is its Pass-book. Ex. C-2 is the application form. Ex. C-3 is the agreement between Gurmail Singh and complainant Mohan Singh by which out of 140 Bigha 6 Biswa, the land 5 Biswa i.e. 100/2806 share was executed between the parties and both the parties had exchanged their possession. The Ops on the basis of complaint made by Sarpanch of the Village had disconnected the connection of the complainant on the plea that the connection was taken by the complainant by way of mis-representation because on the basis of exchange deed, the mutation was not sanctioned in his favour. It was rejected on 25.6.2007. The complaint filed by Sarpanch of the Village is Ex. C-4 and mutation of exchange is Ex. C-12 vide which the mutation of exchange was dismissed. However, it was sanctioned on 10.6.2011. The said mutation has been placed on the record as Ex. C-26. It is on the basis of agreement of exchange dated 6.11.2006, therefore, in case the mutation has been sanctioned lateron on the basis of exchange agreement dated 6.11.2006 then the order of rejecting of the mutation will have no bearing as it had emerged in the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

9.                Now the question arises whether the connection can be released to the co-sharer, which has any property in the joint khata.

10.              Gurmail Singh had 5 Bigha land i.e. 100/2806 share in 140 Bigha 6 Biswa land as mentioned in the agreement Ex. C-3 and it was exchanged with the land of complainant Mohan Singh as mentioned in the agreement. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the respondents was unable to convince before this Commission that in case any connection is required, the person should be in exclusive possession of any land. Even a co-sharer has a right to get the connection in the joint property. So far as possession is concerned, the agreement shows that they had exchanged their possession to their respective property. The legal preposition is that in case all the co-sharers are in joint possession of the property then every co-sharer is presumed to in constructive possession of the entire property, therefore, the Ops cannot take the plea that after the rejection of the mutation, the complainant was not in actual possession of the property. Even otherwise the mutation was sanctioned by the higher Authorities in the year 2011, which has legalised the agreement of the exchange between the parties in Ex. C-3 and then the constructive possession of the complainant in the exchange will to back to the date of agreement i.e. 6.11.2006 and certainly, the connection was disconnected after that date merely on the complaint filed by the Sarpanch of the Village. Moreover, no notice before disconnecting the connection was issued, which was required on account of natural justice. In case of joint property, in case the complainant was not in possession of any specific portion of the property then NOC from the other co-sharers was required. In case the property was belonging to Gurmail Singh, which was subject matter of exchange with the complainant, atleast it had no objection from Gurmail Singh and in case any other co-sharer had an objection then the objection could be raised by the Ops before the release of the connection and after release of the connection none of the co-sharer raised any objection regarding release of the connection to the complainant, therefore, in case the co-sharer did not have any objection regarding the release of the connection in favour of the complainant then Sarpanch does not have any right to raise any objection. Therefore, the tubewell connection of the complainant was wrongly disconnected by the Ops. They had disconnected the connection under Regulation 13.5.5 on the basis of fraud and mis-representation and once the mutation has been sanctioned by the higher Authorities of the exchange land then there is no ailment of mis-representation or fraud on the part of the complainant. Therefore, the ground on the basis of which the connection was disconnected, does not exist any more after the mutation was sanctioned in the year 2011 in favour of the complainant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the evidence and documents has not been properly appreciated by the learned District Forum and has been wrongly dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.

11.              In view of the above, we accept the appeal. Impugned order is set-aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is accepted with a direction to the Ops to release the connection got disconnected against Account No. KMJ-3362 within a period of two months from the date of order and also pay Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

12.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 24.2.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

13.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

                                                                            (Jasbir Singh Gill)

                                                                                                    Member

 

February 27,2015.                                                 (Harcharan Singh Guram)

as                                                                                                Member