Complainant Sukhdev Singh and Gurdev Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties not to disconnect their tubewell connection. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that a tubewell connection bearing No.1537/AP of 5 BHP has been installed in the name of Sh.Parshotam Lal at village Khokhar Faujjian Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. The said tubewell connection alongwith land underneath has been purchased by Sh.Swaran Singh son of Wadhava Singh i.e. their father since long. On 20.05.2017, the enforcement cell of PSPCL conducted checking of their electric connection on the allegations that they have received some online complaint against them for committing theft of electricity but during the checking no alleged theft was found. However, the load of Sukhdev Singh was found more than the sanction loan, for which Sukhdev Singh deposited Rs.1810/- with the opposite parties as per their demand. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued notice memo no.675 dated 08.06.2017 in which it has been directed that tubewell connection may be got transferred in their names within 2 days. They have further pleaded that Swaran Singh has six sons out of whom complainants are residing at village Khokhar Faujjian and two sons namely Tarsem Singh and Baldev Singh are residing at Ludhiana, Charanjit Singh is living in America and Hardev Singh is residing in Canada and daughter Paramjit Kaur who is living at Model Town Kapurthala. Since all the legal heirs of deceased Swaran Singh are  residing at different places, hence it is not possible to complete all the required formalities within two days, otherwise the tubewell connection in question will be disconnected. Moreover, the opposite parties are pressurizing to get tubewell connection transferred in the name of anyone of legal heir of deceased, which is also not possible, because all the legal heirs of deceased are co-sharers in the estate of deceased including tubewell connection. Although they have given due reply to the abovementioned notice that they are ready to deposit the requisite fee and other documents and requested to transfer the tubewell connection in names of all legal heirs of deceased Swaran Singh to which the opposite parties refused. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.           Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has concealed the material and vital facts from the Hon’ble Forum. Hence, the complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands; the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct and the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. On merits, it was admitted that tubewell connection no.AP/1537 of 05 BHP installed in the name of Parshotam Lal at village Khokkar Faujian, Tehsil Batala as per the record of the opposite parties. It was next admitted that on 20.5.2017, the enforcement staff of PSPCL conducted the checking of tubewell connection in dispute, which still stands in the name of Parshotam Lal, who is actual consumer and holder of tubewell connection in dispute as per the record of the opposite parties. It was also admitted that the opposite parties received a online complaint from one Baldev Singh son of Swaran  Singh, whereby, the said Baldev Singh informed that theft of electric energy is being committed on the spot where the tubewell connection in dispute is installed. On receipt of the said complaint, the enforcement staff of PSPCL consisting of ER, Ramesh Sarangal, Senior XEN Enforcement Batala, Er. Lalit Kumar, SDO Naushera Majha Singh, Er Rupinder ingh, JE Model Town Batala checked the tubewelll connection in dispute, but no theft of electric energy was found on the spot by the enforcement staff Since, the tubewell in dispute still stands in the name of Parshotam Lal, the enforcement staff advised the complainant to get the tubewell ind dispute transferred in the name of his father Swaran Singh, but the complainant told the enforcement staff that his father Swaran Singh has also died leaving behind seven legal heirs and successors and a ECR No.67/2282 dated 20.05.2017 was prepared on the spot, which was duly signed and received by the complainant no.2 and thereafter, the opposite parties issued a Memo No.675 dated 08.06.2017 to the complainant No.2 Gurdev Singh to get transferred the tubewell connection from the name of their father Swaran Singh to their names. As per the Sales Manual, if a tubewell connection is purchased by the purchaser from its original  consumer then the said purchaser is under obligations to get the tubewell connection transferred in his name within the period of six months but , in the present case, the complainant has alleged that their father Swaran singh purchased the tubewell connection in dispute from Parshotam Lal  since long, but the said tubtwell connection in dispute did not get transferred in the name of Swaran Singh during his lifetime from the name of Parshotam Lal. Now, the complainant has alleged that Swaran Singh died leaving behind seven legal heirs and successors of the estate of Swaran Singh. But, the complainants have failed to comply with the memos sent by the opposite parties and hence the opposite parties had no option, but to permanently disconnected the tubewell connection in dispute vide PDCO No.84/122 dated 5.9.2017 and the fact regarding disconnection has been informed by the opposite party vide memo no.1129 dated 5.9.2017 which was sent through registered post to the complainant no.2. It has further submitted that it has been reported by Baldev Singh son of Sh.Swaran Singh vide his application dated 11.09.2017 to the opposite parties that there are two partition suits are pending in the different courts at SDM Batala and Tehsildar Naushea Majha Singh pertaining to the land in which the tubewell connection in dispute is installed. The said Baldev Singh further requested not to change the name of the tubewell connection from the name of Parshotam Lal/Swaran Singh to any other name during the pendency of cases. This fact has been kept concealed by the complainant in the present complaint. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, of Sh.Navinder Singh Ex.CW-2/A and of Sh.Gurbax Singh Ex.CW-3/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C26 and closed the evidence.

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit  of Sh.Chander Kant S.D.O./AEE Ex.OP-W1/A alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-15 and closed the evidence.

6.      We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/ document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We observe that the two complainant brothers have been the joint co-owners along with their other siblings but in de-facto physical possession of the Agricultural Land along with the therein installed Electric Tube Well Connection. Although the instant Tube well Connection has been continuing in the name of the past vendor-owner but the present complainant brothers being the tilling co-owners of the Agricultural Land and thus beneficiaries of the Tubewell have been the statutory consumers of the titled OPs. No doubt, there have been partition civil suits continuing amongst the complainant brothers and their other siblings but there have been no sort of any court orders affecting the inter-se rights of the present litigants. We further find that the OP Corporation at the instance of one co-owner sibling of the complainants (and as a sort of collaterally purposed measure) unnecessarily hurried up with the virtual-transfer and subsequent withdrawal/discontinuation of the instant Tubewell Connection to the partial detriment of the tilling complainants. We find that the OP Corporation has unnecessarily and overzealously pressurized the complainant brothers to get the Tubewell Connection transferred in the name of one of the sibling legal-heirs of the vendee owner without first getting executed the inheritance-transfer of the Agricultural Land and that has certainly infringed their consumer rights and in turn has attracted the statutory adverse reward in the OP’s favor.

7.       The complainant brothers have duly produced the evidentiary affidavits (Ex.Cw-1/A to Ex.Cw-3/A) along with other documents (Ex.C1 to Ex.C26) in order to have satisfactorily and sufficiently proved the complaint-contented therein raised allegations. However, upon appearance, the OP service providers have somehow, deposed (Affidavit Ex.OP-w1/A) the contents of written statement and have also produced supporting documents (Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP15) but that does not justify the ‘discontinuation’ of power supply to the Tubewell in question. We are certainly not convinced as to how the effected ‘disconnection’ could have benefited any of the litigating-sides except the OP’s malafide collaterals. Further, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party service providers/ corporation have acted in an arbitrary and unauthorized illegal manner in the present case and thus the present complainant shall be entitled to a favorable statutory award under the applicable Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Somehow, we also find that the impugned disconnection as forced forth upon the complainant by the opposite party corporation has not been a matter of routine and also not in accordance with the legally accrued issues as per their own Sales & Distribution of Electricity Rules & Regulations and the details were neither detailed out in the impugned PDCO (Meter Disconnection Orders) nor any legally valid pre-notice was served, as requisite.

8.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the opposite party SDO  not to disconnect the tubewell connection in dispute besides to pay them an aggregate amount of Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation (for the harassment and financial expense caused by the instant forced upon litigation) but within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid.

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, 2018.                                                       Member

*MK*