Complainant Avtar 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 no.1 to 3  to change the Tubewell connection in his name. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony alongwith  litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is cultivating his own land and irrigating from the Tubewell connection in dispute bearing Account No.SD-338 having 3 BHP capacity which is in the name of the opposite party no.4. He has no other irrigation facility to his land except the above mentioned Tubewell connection in question. The opposite party no.4 has applied for the tubewell connection to the opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.3 has issued Demand Notice to the opposite party no.4 and then he has got installed the same in his own land comprised in Killa No.15 with the consent of the opposite party no.4 in the year 2004 and since then he is using the said electric tubewell connection. Earlier the opposite parties no.1 to 3 used to issue electricity bills of the Tubewell connection in question, which he is regularly paying to the opposite parties and original pass book is also lying with him. He alongwith  opposite party no.4 approached to the opposite party no.3 number of times with request to change the Tubewell connection in question in his name and has also given written application for change the Tubewell connection in dispute in his name but  they refused to admit his claim. The act and conduct of the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to not change the Tubewell Connection in his name is illegal, null and void. 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. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Forum; no cause of action has ever occurred in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties and complainant may be burdened with special costs for harassing the opposite parties and wasting the valuable time of this Forum. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite party no.4 is only the consumer of opposite parties no.1 to 3 and the Tubewell connection according to Jamabandi which was presented at the time of installation of connection in Khasra No.11 Killa No.17, 24 and 23. The complainant has no right to change the connection of his land he has not purchased the land of Surjit Kaur in which Tubewell is installed. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Opposite party no.4 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply admitted all the facts and stated that she has no objection if tubewell connection in dispute change in the name of the complainant and the opposite party is not burden with any cost.

5.       Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

6.       Sh.Sukhdev Raj S.D.O. of opposite parties no.1 to 3 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-W1/A alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-18 and closed the evidence.

7.     Counsel for the opposite party no.4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Surjit Kaur Ex.OP-4/1 and closed the evidence.

8.      We have intently heard (in full) 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 present complainant (an agriculturist resident of Village: Kot Budha, Gurdaspur) although, had him-self applied for a New 3 BHP Electric Connection (with OP Corporation), but the Tube-well Connection # SD-338 was installed in the name of his neighbor Surjit Kaur (here OP4), at his own Ag Land (Killa No. 15) of course with inter-se mutual consent and since then (year 2004) he (complainant) has been cultivating/watering his own Ag fields along with that leased (Ag Lands) from Surjit Kaur OP4 with waters from this very Tube-well. We find that the present dispute arose with the OP Corporation at his (OP4 consented) request application for transfer of the T/Well connection in his name. The OP Corporation instead (of allowing the requested-transfer) had threatened termination of the continuing T/Well Connection, in question. We, further, find that the complainant has satisfactorily and sufficiently proved his allegation contented complaint vide evidentiary affidavit (Ex.C1) and other documents (Ex.C2 to Ex.C5); and also per the supported consent duly expressed by OP4 Neighbour Consumer Surjit Kaur vide her written statement and accompanying affidavit (Ex.OP4).

9.       On the other hand, the OP Corporation has filed its written statement with its duly supported OP3 SDO’s affidavit (Ex.OPW1/A) deposing therein that the disputed T/Well Connection was installed at the OP4 Consumer’s Ag Land as per their records and not at the complainant’s lands as claimed by him. The OP service providers have also produced other documents (Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP18) to support their above raised other contentions but somehow have failed to produce any laid down rules/regulations opposing such inter-se consented transfer of connections and in its absence all other contentions are dwarfed and do not legally support the impugned refusal to execute the requested-transfer of T/Well Connection. The Sub Registrar’s (Land Revenue) certificate duly confirms that the T/Well Connection (in question) has been installed in the Ag Lands owned by the complainant, himself. The OP Corporation has also not denied/rebutted the complainant’s allegation of despised partiality and unwanted confrontation for collateral considerations etc through some cogent and acceptable evidence. Further, the complainant has alleged to have been unnecessarily harassed by the opposite party service providers, allegedly for ulterior motives, starting from the date of transfer application to till-date.

10.     We are certainly not convinced with the defense pleadings of the OP Corporation and are further of the considered opinion that the opposite party service providers have acted in an arbitrary and unauthorized illegal manner in the present case and thus the present complainant shall be entitled to one favorable statutory award. Somehow, we find that the impugned delay by the opposite party corporation in executing the requested connection-transfer had caused much harassment to the complainant and has not been a matter of routine and also not in accordance with the legally determined terms of the OP’s own Marketing/ Sales & Distribution Policy as well as per the rules and regulations as duly formulated by the state government and these details were neither supplied to the applicant complainant nor produced before the forum during the current proceedings, as otherwise requisite.

11.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Corporation Service Providers (OP3 SDO) to allow and execute/implement the impugned transfer of the Tube Well Power Connection (in question) to the name of the applicant complainant besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation (for having caused him undue harassment etc) within a period of 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the award amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the complaint till actually paid.

12.      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)

June 22, 2018.                                                    Member

*MK*