Complainant Harbhajan 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 shift his tubewell connection. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties due to deficient service and unfair trade practice alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that a tubewell connection bearing No.AP-03/357 of 5 BHP had been installed in his name at village Bangowani, Tehsil and Distt.Gurdaspur since long. He was facing difficulties in smooth irrigation of his land, therefore he moved an application dated 10.6.2016 to the opposite party no.1 for shifting the tubewell connection in question from the place of its existence to some other land in the same khata. Opposite party no.1 marked the application to concerned J.E. and other officials and all the officials have made their respective reports on the application. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1 asked him to deposit Rs.500/- as shifting fee and he deposited the same on 13.06.2016. Thereafter the opposite party no.1 prepared estimate and sent the same to Executive Engineer Dhariwal for sanction. Although he is ready to deposit the amount of estimate prepared by the opposite parties but to his utter surprise, the opposite party no.1 returned the case file without mentioning any reason on the same. But the opposite party no.1 orally told that the khata where tubewell connection is to be shifted is joint, but refused to give anything in writing. It was next pleaded that the khata where tubewell connection is already running was joint at the time of releasing the connection and he want to shift the connection in same khata and even about 3 months back tubewell connection in the name of Nanak Singh son of Pritam Singh who is son of his real brother has been installed in the same khata. He approached the opposite parties on number of time and requested for shifting of the tubewell connection in dispute, but the opposite party no.1 did not pay any heed to his requests. Thus there is clear cut deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.            Notice issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint; complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant has moved an application for shifting the tubewell connection in question on 10.6.2016. The tubewell in question has installed in joint khata and for the shifting of the tubewell connection, the No Objection of the other co-sharers is very much necessary but the other co-sharers filed an application to the opposite parties and raised the objection for shifting of tubewell connection in question, hence the opposite parties stopped the process of shifting the tubewell connection in question. Opposite party further submitted that the opposite party has no personal interest in the matter in dispute and did not know the parties personally. The complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.500/- as processing fee and the opposite parties prepared the estimate for the shifting of tubewell connection in question, but during the period the other co-sharers moved application to the opposite parties and raised objection regarding shifting of tubewell connection in dispute, hence the opposite party stopped the whole process as the tubewell connection in question cannot be shifted without the No Objection/Consent of the other co-sharers. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with cost.

4.       Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18 and closed the evidence.

5.    Ld.counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurvinderjit Singh S.D.O. PSPCL Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

6.    Written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties.

7.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

8.   As per details of the case enumerated above the complainant alleged that he has applied for shifting his tubewell electric connection with opposite party no.1 by depositing Rs.500/- as initial processing fee and placed copies at Ex.C-2 & C-3. It is further alleged that the said tubewell connection has not been shifted by opposite party no.1 saying that the land is in joint ownership.

9.      Opposite party in their written statement stated that the case of the complainant was processed for shifting of the said electric connection of tubewell by taking the indemnity bond but the co-sharer of the land (i.e. brothers of the complainant namely S.Pritam Singh and S.Sulakhan Singh) moved applications to various offices of opposite parties including Chairman (Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3) to raise objection in this regard and  requested not to shift the said tubewell connection as they are joint owner of land with their brother (complainant) and using this tubwell connection for irrigating their land also. As such the process of the shifting of the tubewell connection was stopped by them and the complainant was asked to produce the consent of other co-sharer of the land.

10.      The counsel for opposite party has quoted the reference of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual-2018 Clause No.3.3.2 wherein it is mentioned that in such cases where there is joint ownership of land NOC from other members of the family shall be necessary for release/shifting of the connection.

11.      Ld.counsel for the complainant has taken the plea that such NOC was not demanded by opposite parties at the time of release of the connection.

12.       From the above, we find that the work of shifting of the said tubewell connection has been stopped due to dispute between co-sharer of the land. It has been mentioned by the other joint owners in their representation at Ex.OP-2,3 that they are also using this tubewell for the land in their possession and it will create hardship to them if this tubewell connection is shifted from this place.

13.        Now  whether the other joint owners are actually using this tubewell connection for irrigation of their lands is matter of investigation and may involve record and statement/witness of revenue  department and even inspection of site may also be required,  which cannot be conducted under summary trial in this Commission.

14.      The claim of the opposite parties seems to be justified because where there is any dispute among other joint owners of land than consent/NOC from other  co-sharer become necessary to avoid any physical dispute during the execution of the work at site.

         Hence we are of the considered view that the present case can be best disposed off by giving directions to the both the parties.

15.     In view of the above opposite party no.1 & 3 are hereby directed to issue a notice to the complainant regarding submission of necessary/required documents to process the case afresh within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of the orders quoting the rules and regulations of the Department and further opposite parties no.1 & 3 are directed to complete the shifting of the said tubewell connection within 90 days, after the compliance of their notice by the complainant. However the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court of law to seek further remedy is so desired.

           The present complaint is disposed off  accordingly with no order as to costs.

16.           The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

17 .   Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                     

               (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)

                                                                             President   

Announced:                                               (Bhagwan Singh Matharu)

March 10, 2023                                                    Member

*MK*