Punjab

Patiala

CC/21/215

Tarlok Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Abhinav

10 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 215/2021
Date of Institution	:	30.6.2021
Date of Decision	:	10.3.2023

 

Tarlok Singh aged about 50 years son of Late Sh.Raj Singh R/o H.No.6094, Mohalla Sukhdaspura , Near B-Tank, Patiala (Aadhar No.6439  3572  3572)

 

                                                                   ……………Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, H.O.The Mall, Patiala through its CMD.
2. Xen, West Division, Patiala.
3. AEE, Sub Division, Model Town Commercial-2, Patiala.
4. Swatanter Goyal son of Sh.Shanti Swaroop Goyal R/o H.No.7001978, Near Yadwindra Enclave , Nabha Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Abhinav Thapar, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.P.S.Walia, counsel for OPs No.1to3

                             None for OP No.4.

         

                              

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Tarlok Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. At the outset it is stated that the instant order will dispose of the applications filed by the OPs as well as the complaint on merit.
3. The averments put forth by the complainant are as follows:

That the complainant is owner in possession of H.No.6094, Mohalla Sukhdaspura , Near B-Tank, Patiala.The said house is situated within Lal Lakir. Sh.Swatanter Goyal without having any concern or connection bent upon to take forcible possession of the said house against which a civil suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining him from dispossessing complainant from the said house. The said suit was decided in favour of the complainant vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.2021 by court of Sh.G.S.Johal, PCS, Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala. Complainant applied for electricity connection for the aforesaid house to OP No.1 and electricity connection bearing No.3005652259 was installed in the said house. Aforesaid Swatanter Goyal, in order to harass, humiliate and blackmail the complainant moved a false application to the OP for disconnecting said electricity connection.

To the utter surprise of the complainant electricity bill regarding house in question has been generated in the name Swatanter Goyal and the OPs at the behest of said Swatanter Goyal is adamant to disconnect the electricity connection in question, which would cause huge loss, mental pain and agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to give direction to the OPs to notto disconnect theaforesaid electricity connection installed in the house of the complainant and also to pay compensation and costs of the complaint.

4. Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel whereas none appeared on behalf of OP No.4
5. OPs No.1to3 instead of filing written statement to the complaint have filed an application on 20.8.2021for dismissing of the complaint, stating therein that complainant is not the consumer of OP No.1 to 3, he being neither owner of the premises nor  electricity connection is running in his name and  Sh.Shanti Sarup Goel, father of OP No.4 was the owner of property as per the sale deed submitted in the office by Sh.Avtar Singh, Special attorney of Sh.Swatantra Goel/OP No.4. The electricity connection of the premises was transferred in the name of OP No.4 after conducting thorough enquiry and investigation vide demand note dated 23.4.2021, as per rules and regulations of OPs. The current bill has also been issued in the name of OP no.4.
6. On 13.9.2021, OPs have filed another application for review of order dated 7.7.2021, vide which OPs were restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection bearing A/c No.3005652259 of the complainant, subject to deposit of all the outstanding amount till the last bill within 10 days. Again it is averred in the said application that complainant is not the consumer qua OPs No.1to3 and the current electricity bill qua account No.3006758354 has been issued in the name of OP No.4.
7. In reply to the applications complainant denied all averments and prayed for dismissal of applications.
8. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The averments of the complainant are that he is owner in possession of H.No.6094 Mohalla Sukhdaspura, Near B-Tank, Patiala. He has prayed that electricity connection in his name bearing a/c No.3005652259 installed in the said premises may not be disconnected. He has placed reliance upon the electricity bills issued on 15.1.2021 and 8.3.2021, copies of which are Exs.C8 &C9. Complainant has also placed on record copy of judgment dated 15.1.2021, wherein an exparte decree against the said property has been awarded  to the complainant on 15.1.2021 by the court of Civil Judge, Jr.Division, Patiala, copy of which is Ex.C5.
10.   This Commission vide order dated 7.7.2021 had restrained the OPs from disconnecting the electricity connection, in the name of complainant bearing a/c no. 3005652259.
11. Ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the electricity connection in the name of father of OP No.4 bearing a/c No.3000010981 was illegally got disconnected by the complainant in connivance with the official of OP No.3 during 6/2020 and a new connection bearing a/c No.3005652259 was got installed in the aforesaid premises. However, when the matter came to the notice of OPs, same was investigated and connection bearing a/c No. 3005652259, in the name of complainant was then disconnected on 23.5.2021, well before the date on which the restraining order was passed by this Commission on 7.7.2021. As such complainant was neither having a electricity connection in his name on the date of restraining order nor was a consumer of the OPs. Moreover, the complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission, as such he is not entitled for any relief.
12. In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs and electricity connection in the name of complainant bearing a/c No. 3005652259 already stood disconnected on 23.5.2021 well before the date of which restraining order was issued by this Commission. As such while allowing the applications filed by OPs No.1to3, we dismiss the complaint being without any merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
13.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President