Complainant Ajay 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 to restore the electric connection at the earliest which was illegally disconnected by the opposite parties and opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment suffered  by him alongwith Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he applied for a domestic electric connection and deposited the security amount of Rs.2385/- vide receipt No.79, Book  No.E 4564 dated 21.02.2017 in the office of opposite party no.3 to install the electric connection in his constructed accommodation in his agricultural holding vide Khata No.212 and 387 in the revenue estate of Village Chauta, Had Bast No.692, Tehsil and District Gurdasur. The opposite parties has installed electric meter in his premises and started its electric supply on 09.04.2017. On 15.4.2017, the opposite parties acting arbitrarily has disconnected the electric supply to his electric meter and removed the electricity meter from his premises illegally, forcibly and without giving any satisfactory reason and notice. He visited the office of the opposite party no.3 and requested many a times to restore his electricity connection but all in vain. He has next pleaded that opposite party no.3 had issued an illegal Memo No.724 dated 15.05.2017 and cancelled the security deposited for the installation of electric connection vide receipt No.79/4564 dated 21.02.2017 amounting to Rs.2385/- illegally.  Thus, there is 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 complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint with the intention to take undue advantage of the process of law; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately and the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it was submitted that Tarsem Singh moved an application to the opposite parties for the disconnection of the electric connection in dispute by claiming that he is the owner of the land where the abovesaid electric connection is installed and provided the judgment of the Civil Court, Legal notice and jamabandi. After that the opposite parties approached the complainant and said the complainant to file written reply with regard to the allegation of Tarsem Singh but the complainant did not file any reply hence the opposite parties disconnected the connection in dispute.  While denying and controverting other allegations leveled by the complainant, opposite parties have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.       Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence.

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Pupesh Chander, S.D.O. Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 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 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.

7.       We find that the complainant on 09.04.2017 was sanctioned/installed one DS Meter Electric Connection at the farm-residence in village: Chaunta HB 692 in response to his application with security deposit of Rs.2385/- vide Receipt 79 dated 21.02.2017. However, the said D S Connection was unceremoniously withdrawn with the installed Electric Meter removed on 15.04.2017 by the OP Corporation at the application/instance of one Tarsem Singh who claimed to be the legal and rightful owner/lessee of the premises in question.

8.       The evidentiary documents as produced by the complainant Ajay Singh satisfactorily prove him to be the present owner of 1/6 share of 30k-04m comprised in Khewat/Khatauni: 228/307 (J. Yr. 2012-13) as of: 212/387 (J. Yr. 2005-06) that somehow does not appear to be comprised of the disputed Khasra # 82//(6-14) for which the honorable Civil Court at Gurdaspur has passed injunction orders favoring Tarsem Singh at whose instance the complainant’s connection was terminated by the OP Corporation.

9.       We find that the OP service providers have not produced any cogent evidence on record that they had satisfied themselves before removing the DS electric connection (in question) that the same was installed at the disputed/decreed piece of land and not at the lawfully owned dwelling house built upon the Ag land duly owned by the complainant.

10.     The complainant has based his claim upon his deposition Ex.C1; Jamanbandi & other Land Revenue Records (Ex.C2 to Ex.C4); Water and Electricity Security Receipts (Ex.C5 to Ex.C7); OP Disconnection Memo Ex.C8 and photographs of Electric Meter Site/Dwelling House etc exhibited as Ex.C9 to Ex.C12. However, the opposite party corporation (service providers) have refuted all the allegations vide its written statement and has further deposed (vide affidavit Ex.OP1) that the DS Supply was indeed withdrawn at the instance (legal notice Ex.OP2) of one Tarsem Singh who had produced courts’ decree(s) in his favor (Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP6) over some leased Wakf Lands (in the village) against some residents including the present complainant and thus they have rightfully disconnected (Ex.OP7) the DS supply to him. Somehow, the courts’ decree(s)/orders invariably indicate that the possession over the disputed Wakf Lands was held by Tarsem Singh Side whereas the complainant has proved here on records that he owns one Pucca-Built Walled Dwelling-House at the Site of the DS installation. Also, the courts’ decree(s) as produced here have no mention of the complainant’s possession/ dwelling house over the disputed land(s) and the OP service providers have also failed to prove that the installed DS supply site was located over the litigated/decreed/disputed land/Wakf property.      

11.         In the light of the all above, we find that the complainant’s DS Electric Supply (in question) was arbitrarily withdrawn by the OP service providers who, in the process, have also bruised his consumer rights. Thus, while partly allowing the present complaint, we ORDER the titled opposite party # 3 (service providers) to restore the withdrawn Electric DS Supply at the complainant’s dwelling site (under his possession) within 07 working days from the receipt of these orders besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation. The complainant here shall however be liable to pay all his consumption charges for his actual consumption on regular basis. 

12.         Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record. 

                                                                      (Naveen Puri)

                                                                             President

ANNOUNCED:                                         (Jagdeep Kaur)

December 13, 2017.                                             Member

*MK*