Complaint No: 206 of 2017.
Date of Institution:20.04.2017.
Date of order:21.08.2023.
Lakhbir Singh son of Dalip Singh Resident of Village Ghuman Khurd, P.O. N.M. Singh District Gurdaspur, (Now deceased) through legal heirs:-
- Kulbir Kaur, widow
- Gaganpreet Singh
- Navdeep Singh, sons
- Amanpreet Kaur D/o Lakhbir Singh
All residents of Vill. Ghuman Khurd, P.O. N.M. Singh Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
- Gurwinder Kaur D/o Lakhbir Singh W/o Sarwan Singh R/o Vill. Sohal Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
.....Complainants.
VERSUS
- Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division Naushera
Majja Singh Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, through its SDO.
- Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.,
Gurdaspur.
- Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall Patiala, through its CMD.
- Harjit Kaur Wd/o Kulwant Singh R/o Vill. Ghuman Kalan Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
....Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainants: Sh.B.S.Bangowani, Adv.
For the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3: Sh.Opinder Rana, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No.4: Sh.S.S.Dhaliwal, Adv.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh
Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Lakhbir Singh, Complainant (now deceased) (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the PSPCL and others(here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist by profession and tubewell connection bearing Account No. AP 19/1350 was installed/released in the name of him in the year 2009. Since the date of release of the electric tubewell connection he had been irrigating his land with the tubewell connection, paying electricity charges etc. as per policy of the PSPCL/ Govt. of Punjab, and as such he is a consumer of the OP’s. It is alleged that at the time of getting tubewell connection he was owner in possession of land measuring 7 Kanal 9 Marla and he placed on file copy of Fard Haqiat and Jamabandi etc. showing his above mentioned ownership. The documents were duly verified by the OP’s and the tubewell connection was released by the OP’s after their satisfaction from all corners and depositing of requisite security fee and other charges by him. It is submitted that at present he is owner of land measuring 8 Kanal 12 Marla. It is further alleged that the OP’s issued notice No. 308 dated 22.2.2017,in which he is owner of land measuring 7 Kanal 9 Marla which is less than 8 Kanals and he was directed to appear before the OP.No.1 along with Fard Haqiat and Jamabandi etc. within 7 days. Accordingly, he appeared before the OP.No.1 and clarified the picture that he had placed documents showing his ownership as 7 Kanal 9 Marla at the time of getting connection and connection was released after proper verification. It was also cleared by him that now he is owner in possession of land measuring 7 Kanal 9 Marla. He neither suppressed any fact from the OP’s, nor he placed on record any forged or fake document. There was no malafide intention or ill will on part of him. It is further alleged that to the utter surprise of him, the OP’s have disconnected his Electric Tubewell connection on 12.04.2017 illegally and arbitrarily. It is further alleged that he approached the OP’s and requested for restoration of the Tubewell connection, but the OP’s did not pay any heed to the requests of him. As such he is suffering physically, mentally and financially as well. He has no other source of or irrigation and in case his connection is not restored immediately, he is fully depending upon agriculture work will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, he has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to restore the Electric Tubewell connection of him immediately. He may kindly be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him due to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/- may also be awarded to him in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties no.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint with the intention to harass the opposite parties, that the complainant has not approach this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately, that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is pleaded that Harjit Kaur moved an application to the opposite party that the land of the complainant was less than 1 acre at the time of installation of tubewell connection as the complainant has got tubewell connection illegally by deceiving the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the opposite party has issued the notice no. 308 to the complainant for producing the jamabandi of his ownership so that allegations leveled by the above mentioned applicant be decided but the complainant did not file the jamabandi of his ownership of 1 acre or more than 1 acre, hence the opposite party PDCO the connection in dispute on 12.4.2017 so the question of illegality does not arise. It is further pleaded that the complainant had produced the jamabandi more than 1 acre of his ownership after the PDCO and then the opposite party send the letter to his higher officials for taking further necessary action.
On merits, the opposite parties no.1 to 3 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Upon notice, opposite party no.4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and filed the present complaint by concealing the true facts from this Hon'ble Commission and as such the complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs. It is pleaded that the complainant Lakhbir Singh is elder brother of the husband of OP.No.4. The complainant has obtained tubewell connection in the year 2009 by concealing true facts from OP’s no.1 to 3 and by misleading them. It is particularly mentioned that OP.No.4 (Harjit Kaur) also filed complaint with OP’s no.1 to 3 and on inquiry complaint of OP.No.4 was found to be valid and genuine and OP’s no.1 to 3 disconnected connection of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the OP.No.4 is having joint kahta with complainant and same is undivided. The complainant never obtained no objection from the OP.No.4 and other co-sharers without which the OP’s no.1 to 3 are not authorized to issue tubewell connection. The complainant also made wrong and misleading application to the OP’s no.1 to 3 at the time of obtaining tubewell connection to the effect that he has no source of irrigation. Infact, there is a joint tubewell connection of the consumer and that of deceased husband of the OP.No.4 and both the parties were irrigating their respective shares/undivided land. The complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and he has concealed all the above mentioned facts, hence he is not entitled to any assistance from the Hon'ble court.
On merits, the opposite party no.4 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with special costs.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Lakhbir Singh (Complainant) as Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurvinderjit Singh Ex.OP-1,2,3/1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1,2,3/2 to Ex.OP-1,2,3/6.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Harjit Kaur as Ex.OP-4/1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-4/2 to Ex.OP-4/3.
8. Written arguments on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 3 filed but not filed on behalf of complainant and opposite party no.4.
9. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant Lakhbir Singh (now deceased) was having AP connection bearing A/c No.19/1350 installed by opposite parties No.1 to 3 since the year 2009 and at the time of issuance of connection complainant was owner in possession of land measuring 7 Kanal 9 Marla and had correctly placed on record Fard Haqiat and Jamabandi of his land. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 allotted the said connection to the complainant after verifying all the documents. However, opposite parties No.1 to 3 issued notice No.308 dated 22.2.2017 and directed the complainant to show cause regarding his ineligibility to get the connection installed and there after disconnected the electric tubewell connection of the complainant on 12.4.2017 and has prayed that connection was disconnected illegally and is liable to be restored and act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
10. Counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3 has submitted written arguments and has argued that since the land of the complainant was less than 1 acre at the time of installation of tubwell connection and as such complainant obtained connection illegally by deceiving the opposite parties and as such on receiving the complaint, connection was rightly disconnected.
11. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.4 has argued that complainant had got the connection illegally and on complaint having been made by opposite party No.4 the same was rightly disconnected.
12. During the pendency of the present complaint Lakhbir Singh complainant died and on application having been moved by the counsel for the complainant legal heirs of the complainant Lakhbir Singh namely Kulbir Kaur, Gaganpreet Singh, Navdeep Singh, Amanpreet Kaur and Gurwinder Kaur were allowed to be impleaded vide order dated 21.07.2023.
13. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant was having electric tubewell connection bearing A/c No.AP-19/1350 since the year 2009 which was got installed by the complainant Lakhbir Singh from opposite parties No.1 to 3. It is further admitted fact that at the time of installation of the said connection total land of the original complainant Lakhbir Singh was 7 Kanal 9 Marla which was confirmed from copy of Fard Haqiat Ex.C4 and Jamabandi Ex.C5. It is further admitted fact that only farmers having land upto 1 acre or more were eligible for electric tubewell connection. It is further admitted fact that opposite party No.4 had moved complaint with opposite parties No.1 to.3 for disconnection of electric tubewell connection of the complainant. It is further admitted fact that connection bearing A/c No.AP-19/1350 was disconnected by the opposite parties No.1 to 3 on 12.04.2017. The contention of the counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3 is that since the complainant obtained AP connection by deceiving the department and as such opposite parties rightly disconnected the electric connection on coming to know about the holding of the complainant being less i.e. 7 Kanal 9 Marla but this Commission do not find any force in contention of the counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3, as opposite parties No.1 to 3 had properly verified the revenue record attached with the application moved by the original complainant i.e. Lakhbir Singh, when the connection was ordered to be installed in his favour. Moreover, It is not the case of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 that complainant had placed forged and fabricated revenue record to prove this fact that his land is 1 acre and more. Perusal of documents further shows that at the time of filing of the present complaint, the complainant was having land holding of 8 Kanal 12 Marla. We are of the view of that although the complainant was having land measuring 7 Kanal 9 Marla at the time of installation of tubewell connection in favour of the complainant but it was the duty of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to have verified the documents before allowing the connection and when the connection was already installed for the last the last 9 years the same cannot be disconnected, particularly when complainant has acquired/purchased some more land and his total holding at the time of filing of the complainant was 8 Kanal 12 Marla. As such there is definite deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3 for having disconnected the electric tubewell connection of the complainant. Accordingly, complaint is partly allowed with the directions to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to restore the electric tubwell connection bearing A/c No. AP-19/1350 issued in favour of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as costs.
14. 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.
15. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Aug. 21, 2023 Member
*YP*
