Complainant Iqbal Singh through the present complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') has prayed for issuance of the necessary directions against the opposite parties being the different offices/authorities of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., to release 5 BHP electric tubewell connection to him besides to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation, in the interest of justice and fair play.  

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that her mother Harbans Kaur during her life time had applied for the said power connection with the opposite party service providers and after her death he subrogated her to get the same released in his favour. His two brothers Kashmir Singh and Dilbagh Singh had given their relinquishment affidavits in his favour and thus he deserved to be released the said power connection. However, the opposite parties for ulterior purpose refused to release the power connection in question on arbitrary grounds and thus prompted the present complaint with the desired relief as prayed, hereinabove

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and replied that J.E. Paramjeet Singh was deputed to conduct field inspection of the site on 10.5.2013 and he had reported that another son of the deceased applicant Harbans Kaur had met him and has claimed his right over the power connection being one of the legal heirs and thus the power connection has been rightly refused to be released to the complainant. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.     

4.           Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C1 and of Dilbagh Singh Ex.C9, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavits of Paramjit Singh J.E. Ex.OP-1 and of Jaswant Singh S.D.O. Naushehra Majja Singh Ex.OP-5, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4, Ex.OP6 to  Ex.OP11 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both 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.

7.       We find that the OP service providers have refused the release of the Power connection to the complainant on the strength of the spot-verification report dated 10.05.2013 of the JE Paramjit Singh (Ex.OP1 & Ex.OP4) as per which the original applicant Smt.Harbans Kaur (complainant’s mother to whom, he has subrogated as applicant) had since demised, owned no cultivable Land and her another son Pritam Singh (being the LR), also claims his right over the Power connection. It is to be understood that the complainant Iqbal Singh subrogated his mother Harbans Kaur (the original-applicant Ex.OP6) only after her death Ex.C6 on the strength of the Ex.C5 Registered Will # 114 of 10.01.2001 to the exclusion of his other two brothers (Dilbagh Singh & Kashmir Singh) who had duly filed their affidavits Ex.C9 and copies Ex.C7 & Ex.C8 duly deposing their respective relinquishments in the favor of the complainant in whose share the Power connection had fallen. The Land as duly shown in the Ex.OP9 was naturally inherited and mutated in her Sons’ name. The same Will Ex.C5 also states (in the last paragraph) that her other three Sons namely: Ajit Singh, Pritam Singh & Raghbir Singh have already received their shares in the Property. The Will has not been challenged/contested in any court of Law and a simple verbal claim by another son Pritam Singh before the JE Paramjit Singh and/or his un-identifiable LTI on the Ex.OP4 shall have no legal value and certainly cannot be a valid ground for refusal of the release of the sanctioned Power Connection and considered in its totality speaks aloud of the arbitrariness on the part of the OP besides indicating of some collateral reasons, too. It also speaks of deployment of ‘unfair trade practices’ amounting to ‘deficiency in service’ on the OP’s part placing them liable to an adverse award under the Act.     

8.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite parties to release the sanctioned Power Connection to the complainant in his name besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation (for having caused him un-necessary harassment, inconvenience and delay etc) and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the present complaint till actually paid.  

9.           Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.            

                  (Naveen Puri)                                                   

             President

ANNOUNCED:                    (G.B.S.Bhullar)                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

February 24, 2015.                         Member                                 Member

*MK*