Complainant Kasim Ali 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 withdraw the undue, unwarranted, arbitrary and illegal notice/memo no.847 dated 15.06.2015. Opposite parties be further directed not to disconnect electric connection No.CA-3000309933 and to pay compensation for mental agony, harassment caused to him alongwith litigation expenses including counsel’s fee amounting to Rs.25,000/-, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he had taken an electric connection from the opposite party no.4 vide connection No.CA-3000309933 for supply of domestic electric energy after submitting an application in the shape of prescribed form by the opposite parties and since installation of his connection he has been paying the bills for electric energy consumed by him. He was compelled to give an affidavit to prove his ownership at the time of installation of electric connection, therefore, being an occupant for last more than 25 years of the premises, he submitted an affidavit to  this effect to the opposite parties, then the opposite party no.4 granted his electricity connection. He has further pleaded that in January 2015 the opposite party no.4 issued a notice memo dated 14.1.2015 to him with reference of some other memos issued by the opposite parties but not received by him, he received memo No.109 only wherein the opposite party no.4 asked him to present the proof of ownership within seven days otherwise his electric connection would be disconnected and  the same had been replied by him through his counsel vide letter dated 19.01.2015 received by the opposite party on 20.01.2015, entered at Serial No.103 of their Dak Receipt Book. The opposite party no.4 had issued the aforesaid memos only on the objection of some stranger namely Purshotam Singh who claims himself to be owner of the place of his residence. His counsel replied to the memo no.109, in detail vide his reply dated 19.1.2015 and made the factual as well as legal position clear to the opposite party no.4 wherein it was stated that he has been living in this residence/kull since his birth and his possession is considerably for a long long time and is continuous, uninterrupted and unchanged one, therefore, if there is any dispute regarding ownership of the land that can only be resolved by the Civil Court and also cleared the legal position and stated that memo dated 14.1.2015 is illegal, null and void and against the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, the opposite parties are bound to supply the electricity once they got the application and security amount deposited by the applicant. After the reply, the opposite parties being satisfied with the reply, closed the file and no any sort of further action had been taken by them. Now on 25.06.2015 all in sudden the employees of the opposite party no.4 came present and attempted to disconnect his connection but due to intervention of respectable and some members of panchayat the illegal attempt of the opposite parties had been foiled. On the very next day the opposite party no.4 issued another memo no.847 dated 15.06.2015 again asked to present proof of ownership within 4 days otherwise his connection will be disconnected. He has next pleaded that a false and frivolous FIR No.36 dated 30.04.2015 U/s 447/420 IPC has been registered by the police of P.S.Sadar Gurdaspur having no substance at all. In this very case the Court of Sh.Rajnish Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur has granted interim/anticipatory bail to him by accepting the contentions of the counsel of the accused. The opposite parties are adamant to disconnect his electric connection just to harass and humiliate him. The opposite parties are using their position and posts to pressurize him just to help Purshotam Singh to get the land/resident in dispute vacated. The act and conduct of the opposite party no.4 and his employees is arbitrary, against the provisions of Electricity Act, 2005. 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 4 appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply submitting therein that the complainant has given a wrong affidavit regarding the ownership of the site for connection. Infact, complainant is not owner of the land in which he has got installed electric connection by giving wrong affidavit whereas Parshotam Singh is the owner of the and measuring 14 R, Kila No.3/2 (0-18), Killa No.8/1 (5-O) and the complainant has no right, title or interest in the land in which he has got installed electric connection by giving wrong affidavit regarding the ownership of the site for connection. Parshotam Singh has submitted Jamabandi before the office of opposite party regarding ownership. Parshotam Singh has got registered an FIR against the complainant regarding the same and in the P.S.City Gurdaspur U/s 420 IPC. They have further submitted that the PSPCL Sub Urban, Gurdaspur has issued a notice to the complainant to disconnect the connection of the complainant as the PSPCL cannot issue electric connection to the complainant on the stranger’s land without his consent. The complainant has no proof of ownership of the site for connection, so he has no right to get the electric connection on stranger’s land and since the complainant had no right over the site for connection, so the opposite party has issued a notice to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant after receiving copy of the FIR from Parshotam Singh. The complainant has given wrong and false affidavit in the office of the opposite party, therefore, the FIR is rightly registered against the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Opposite party no.5  has moved an application for impleading as a  party in the main complaint on 9.11.2015 which was allowed vide order dated 6.1.2016 and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objection that the present complaint as framed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and he has intentionally concealed the material facts from this Hon’be Forum and as such he is not entitled to any relief and the present complaint is abuse of process and the complainant is trying to get the help of the Hon’ble Forum to perpetuate his illegal act and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was submitted that the Parshotam Singh only came to know in the month of January, 2015 that the complainant has fraudulently obtained the electricity connection in his temporary shed/kull made by him of thatches in the land of the opposite party no.5 by concealing true facts from the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd and by pretending him to be the owner of the land in which he has raised his kull made of thatches and he submitted an affidavit duly sworn by him to this effect to the opposite party no.1 to to 4 fully knowingly as he is not the owner of the land i.e. Kila Nos.9/2, 9/2/1, 8/1 of Rect. No.14, situated in the revenue estate of village Abal Khair, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and the said land is owned by the opposite party Parshotam Singh. Actually he has fraudulently given wrong and false affidavit claiming himself to be owner of the land for the purpose of getting electricity connection. It was further submitted that the notice has been rightly issued by the opposite party no.4 on 14.1.2015 and the other notices were also issued to the complainant which were duly received by him. Parshotam Singh has moved a complaint against the complainant that he has fraudulently obtained the electricity connection by pretending himself to be owner of the premises, whereas he was not owner of the land in question. The complainant has tried to mislead the authorities by paying fraud and as well as by playing fraud with the opposite party Parshotam Singh. He was fully aware that the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd and its officials have issued notices to him on the complaint of the opposite party but he has not intentionally disclosed this fact nor he has impleaded as a party to the  opposite party in the original complaint to get relief from this Forum at the back of the opposite party. The complainant has wrongly stated that the notices to him were issued by the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd at the instance of some stranger, whereas Parshotam Singh opposite party is not a stranger and he is owner of the premises where the complainant has got released the electricity connection in his name by playing fraud and cheating and as well as forgery. It was specifically denied that the complainant has been living in the Kull since his birth. The opposite party Parshotam Singh is agriculturist and he allowed the complainant to stay with his cattle in the disputed premises only for the purpose of securing manure and as such the question of his long and continuous possession over there is specifically denied. It was next submitted that the answering respondent is a man of 95 years old and he is very weak and infirm and by taking advantage of his old age and bodily infirmity, the complainant with a view to grab his valuable property, has got installed electricity meter in his name in the premises owned by Parshotam Singh. Actually, FIR No.36 dated 30.4.2014 under section 447, 420 IPC has been rightly registered against the complainant at P.S.Sadar Gurdaspur. It was next submitted that a criminal case is pending against the complainant and he is facing trial. The complainant is not entitled to avail the facility of electricity connection as he has obtained the same by concealing true facts and the connection in question is liable to be disconnected. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.     Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.CW-1/A and Ex.CW1/B, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Sh.Harmanpreet Singh Gill S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-W1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

7.      Sh.Parshotam Singh opposite party no.5 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-5/A aongwith other documents Ex.OP-5/1 to Ex.OP-5/3 and closed the evidence.

8.       We have thoroughly examined the available documents/evidence on the records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference (if any) on account of some of the documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels of the present litigating contestants. We find that the present complainant (vide his affidavit Ex.CW-1A) has been the holder in usage (and an undisputed consumer) of the OP corporation vide the Domestic Supply Connection # CA-3000307933 till the issuance of impugned Memo # 109 of 14.01.2015 (Ex.C2) that prompted the present dispute/ complaint. The OP Corporation for un-explicit reasons (as per records of the proceedings) issued the above referred Memo alleging therein that the said connection was procured through the ‘submission’ of one ‘wrong’ affidavit and thus the complainant was directed to file some ‘cogent’ evidence to prove his title-ownership to the ‘premises’ in question within ‘7’ days of the issuance of the said memo (that incidentally also refers to some earlier issued ‘2’ nos of memos with however no ‘proof’ of dispatch/receipt etc). Further, the OP Corporation issued memo # 847 of 15.06.2015 alleging ‘fraud’ played upon them by the complainant by filing of the wrong affidavit (of title) resulting into lodging of FIR # 36 of 30.04.2015 against him and also directing him to finally place some cogent ‘evidence’ of title–ownership within ‘4’ days. 

9.       We are of the considered opinion that (at the first place) the OP Corporation have not been within its legal rights to have ‘requisitioned’ some ‘cogent-evidence’ (pukhta-saboot) of ‘title-ownership’ of premises in question from one continuing ‘consumer’ and that too at the ‘instance’ of a ‘rival’ contender (for possession of the property in question) i.e., opposite party # 5 (Parshotam Singh). The OP service providers own produced ‘A&A’ (Application & Allotment Rules) Ex.OP2 at its page 20/129 (clause 6.4.3) (b) necessitates ‘proof’ of Ownership/Occupancy of Premises for the purposes of allotment/ release of power-connection. A complete study/examination  of the ‘5’ nos of the sub-clauses (i to v) of ‘6.4.3 b’ makes it amply clear that the term ‘ownership/occupancy’ here, shall not be ‘exclusively’ interpreted as ‘title-ownership’ but shall also be comprised of ‘possession-ownership/ occupant-ownership’ etc. Interestingly, the Rules do not have any provision of ‘acceptance’ of an affidavit (but that of an indemnity-bond) from a lawful occupier who has been unable to produce any other acceptable evidence.

10.     Moreover, as per the available OP produced evidence even these ‘Rules’ are applicable only to the ‘applicant/allotment’ aspirants and not to the ‘continuing consumers’ like the present complainant. There has been sufficient ‘evidence’ on record to establish that the OP Corporation has sided with the OP5 Parshotam Singh and ‘have issued the impugned Memo at his instance. The OP referred FIR # 36 has indeed been filed by the OP5 land-owner but has been produced by the OP Corporation in evidence as Ex.OP3; whereas the complainant’s controversial Affidavit filed with the OP Corporation found its way to the OP5 land-owner who has exhibited it as: Ex.OP5/1. The OP5 has duly admitted in his affidavit Ex.OP-5/A that out of the total Land owned by him (Ex.OP3 Jamanbandi) he allowed 01 Kanal to the complainant to occupy/ reside as such and that proves his ‘occupancy/ possession’ entitling him for allotment of ‘electricity’ domestic connection. The property dispute has been a post-allotment (connection) development and that never legally justified the unnecessary ‘prompt’ of the impugned memos Ex.C2 and Ex.C4 to an existing/continuing consumer/complainant.

11.        Finally, we are of the considered opinion that the OP1-4 corporation being a service provider had no locus-standi to interfere and/or to take sides in the inter-se property dispute between the complainant and the OP5 property owner and moreover being a State Govt. undertaking should have acted ‘impartially’ to all its consumers, alike. Somehow, the on-going inter-se property-dispute with the related FIR for filing of the allegedly wrong ‘affidavit’ has neither been an infringement nor a subject-matter of consumer-rights and are already under the rightful legal adjudication/resolve/ under the applicable law.

12.       Moreover, the statutory resolve of infringement of the complainant’s consumer rights under the applicable C P Act’ 1986 shall in no way affect the other lawful interests and legal rights of the litigating contestants. However, to continue with the present adjudication we hold that the very demand & acceptance (of the complainant’s) allegedly ‘wrong’ affidavit by the OP Corporation has been ‘arbitrary’ since its own rules prescribed for ‘indemnity-bond’ (and not for an ‘affidavit’) in the absence of the itemized documents as enumerated for submission by an applicant-occupier.        

13.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the OP Corporation to withdraw the impugned memo # 109 & 847 of 14.01.2015 & 15.06.2015, respectively (exhibited here as Ex.C2 & Ex.C4); and let the complainant continue with the un-disturbed usage of the connection # 3000307933 till his occupancy-possession of the property premises (in question) does not get ‘lawfully’ vacated. However, the present adjudicatory shall have no effect of whatsoever upon the proprietary ‘rights & interests’ of the OP5 Parshotam Singh, the ownership title-holder as well as the complainant who both shall be at liberty to lawfully exercise their respective legal rights to safeguard their respective lawful interests etc but in accordance with law and as per the procedure prescribed in law.

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

                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                President   

Announced:                                                        (Jagdeep Kaur)

May,27 2016                                                                Member

*MK*