Complaint No: 344 of 2017.
Date of Institution: 04.07.2017.
Date of order: 19.09.2023.
Nirmal Kaur aged about 48 years W/o Sh. Baldev Singh resident of Village Khushi Pur, P.O Dalel Pur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
.....Complainant.
VERSUS
- Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division Kalanaur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, through its SDO.
- Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Kalanaur, through its Executive Engineer, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
- Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall Patiala, through its CMD.
- Bakhshish Singh son of Ram Singh resident of Village Khushi Pur P.O Dalel Pur Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
.....Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.B.S.Boparai, Adv.
For the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3: Sh.Opinder Rana, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No.4: Sh.Rajinder Singh, Adv.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
Nirmal Kaur, Complainant (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 P.S.P.C.Ltd. and others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant was that the complainant purchased land measuring 2 Kanal situated in the revenue estate of Village Khushi Pur Tehsil and District Gurdaspur from the OP No. 4 through Registered sale deed dated 09.08.2011 along with modes of irrigation for a consideration of Rs.2,13,000/-. The complainant stated that she was in actual, physical, exclusive cultivating possession of the land purchased by her and in this land an electric Tubewell connection Bearing No. AP-45/1322H of 3 BHP has been installed in the name of OP No. 4. The OP No. 4 has also executed an affidavit duly attested by Executive Magistrate, Kalanaur that he has no objection if the above mentioned tubewell connection is transferred in the name of the complainant. The complainant was using the above mentioned tubewell connection for the irrigation of her land from the date of execution and registration of sale deed dated 09.08.2011. It was alleged that on account of some domestic reasons relations between the complainant and her family members became strained with the OP No. 4 and his family and the OP No. 4 with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and financial loss to the complainant and her family moved application to the OP No. 2, mentioning therein that he has sold the entire land in which tubewell connection is installed and the same may be disconnected. It was further alleged that on the application of the OP No. 4, the OP’s No. 1 and 2 have disconnected the tubewell connection of the complainant, without serving her any prior notice and without affording opportunity of being heard to the complainant. It was further alleged that on account of illegal disconnection of the tubewell connection of the complainant, by the OP’s No.1 to 3, the complainant is facing great difficulties for irrigation of her land. The land of the complainant has become barren for want of proper irrigation, as except this tubewell connection, the complainant has no other source of irrigation. It was further alleged that the complainant approached the OP’s No. 1 to 3 on number of times and requested for the restoration of the tubewell connection in dispute, but the OP’s No.1 to 3 did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to restore the said tubewell connection immediately with compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to her due to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/- in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing their written reply, the opposite parties raised preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint and has not approached this Commission with clean hands and concealed the material facts. Further it was pleaded that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not the consumer to the opposite parties No.1to3. It is pleaded that the fact of the matter is that electric tubewell connection bearing AP 45/1322 was sanctioned in the name of opposite party no. 4 and the opposite party no. 4 moved an application for the disconnection of the above said connection and the same was disconnected by the answering opposite parties on 20.1.2017. It was further pleaded that the answering opposite parties has no personal interest in the matter in dispute and have no enmity with the complainant. The whole allegations leveled by the complainant on the answering opposite parties are totally vague false and concocted one. The complainant never approached the answering opposite parties and never disclosed about any affidavit of the opposite party no. 4 as alleged in this complaint.
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 the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Upon notice, opposite party No.4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing their written reply. The opposite party No. 4 raised preliminary objections that the complainant is not the consumer of the tubewell connection No.AP-45/1322H hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It was pleaded by the opposite party No. 4 that the present complaint is not maintainable as the tubewell connection bearing No. AP-45/1322H of 3 BHP has already been disconnected much prior to the filing of the present complaint and the complainant has got no locus standi or any cause of action, as the matter in dispute is civil in nature. So the complainant can file a civil suit for her right. It was pleaded that he has never sold the tubewell connection to the complainant. In fact, he has sold only land to the complainant situated at Village Khusipur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. It was denied that the OP No. 4 also executed an affidavit in favor of the complainant regarding the transfer of tubewell connection and affidavit if any is false, forged and does not bears his signatures. Even from the perusal of the sale deed he has never sold the tubewell connection, nor there is any references regarding the tubewell connection. It was further denied that the complainant is using the tubewell connection and irrigating her land from the date of sale deed. In fact, the tubewell connection has already been disconnected much before the filing the present complaint and it was further pleaded that if the complaint is illegally consuming the electricity directly from the electric wire then it amounts to theft of electricity and PCPCL department can take necessary action against her.
On merits, the opposite party No.4 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 his part. In the end, the opposite party No. 4 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nirmal Kaur, (Complainant) as Ex.C-1 along with 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 Gurnam Singh, (S.D.O, P.S.P.C.L, Sub - Division Kalanaur, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1 along with other documents as Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Bakhshish Singh as Ex.OP-4/1 along with reply.
8. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
9. Written arguments filed by both the parties.
10. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral 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 purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
11. As enumerated above the present complaint was filed by the complainant to get the electricity connection of a tubewell installed in the land purchased by her restored, which has been disconnected by opposite party No.,1 on the request of opposite party No.4. It has been alleged by the complainant that she has purchased land measuring 2 Kanal from opposite party No.4 alongwith modes of irrigation in 08/2011 as per sale deed placed at Ex.C2. There was a tubewell installed in that land with electricity connection bearing A/c No.AP-45/1322H of 3 BHP which is in the name of opposite party No.4. Further, it was pleaded that she was using this tubewell connection for irrigation of her land since 08/2011but in 01/2017 due to some personal enmity opposite party No.4 got the electric connection of said tubwell disconnected by moving an application to opposite parties No.1 and 3. Now she has no to other source of irrigation. Further, it was also mentioned that opposite party No.4 has executed an affidavit regarding No Objection if the said tubwell is transferred in the name of the complainant which is placed at Ex.C3.
12. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 in their written reply denied all the allegations but admitted the fact that said tubewell connection bearing A/c No. AP-45/1322H which was in the name of opposite party No.4 has been disconnected on the request of opposite party No.4 on 20.01.2017. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 have placed on record copy of affidavit filed by opposite party No.4 for disconnection, copy of request letter of opposite party No.,4, copy of disconnection order as Ex.OP-5.
13. Opposite party No.4 in his written reply also denied all the allegations but admitted the fact that he has sold the land to the complainant. He has further pleaded that he has not given any affidavit in favour of the complainant and alleged that affidavit if any is false/forged and it does not bear his signatures. Further, it was stated by opposite party No.4 that he has not sold the said tubewell connection to the complainant. He has also admitted the fact that the said tubwell connection was disconnected by him as it was not required.
14. Now opposite parties No.1 to 3 and 4 stated in their written replies and in the arguments also that the complainant is not a consumer as the said tubewell connection is not in her name.
15. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1041 of 2020, Canara Bank Vs. United India Insurance Company wherein it has been clearly mentioned that "the definition of consumer under the act is very wide and it not only included the person who hires and avail the services for consideration to also includes the beneficiary of such services who may be a person other than the person who hires and avails of services".
16. In the present complaint the complainant is the beneficiary of the said tubewell connection hence falls under the definition of consumer as per Act.
17. We have heard the arguments of the counsels for the parties and gone through the evidences. It is seen that as per sale deed as Ex.C2 it is clearly been mentioned "Alongwith Modes of Irrigation". Further, as per Ex.C3 opposite party has also executed an affidavit in favour of the complainant. Opposite party No.4 has failed to produce any cogent evidence regarding his claim of forged affidavit etc. as he has not taken any action against the complainant for this act.
18. There is a deficiency on the part of opposite party No.1 and 2 also as the said tubewell connection was installed in the land purchased by the complainant so during the action of disconnection by opposite parties the same must has been confirmed from user/beneficiary of that tubewell before disconnection at site.
19. In view of the above we are of the opinion that the right of the complainant for use of the said tubewell connection which is installed in her land (Although it is in the name of opposite party No.4) cannot be denied. Moreover disconnection of the tubewell connection is not going to benefit the OP-4 in anyway as the electricity department (OP-1 to 3) is not charging any amount for the service of electricity in case of agriculture tubewell connections. But it is certainly going to effect the beneficiary (Complainant) as she is being denied the irrigation facility available which she was using previously before disconnection of the said tubewell connection.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 and 2 is hereby directed to restore the above said disconnected tubewell connection bearing A/c No. AP-45/1322H of 3 BHP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.
21. 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.
22. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Sept. 19, 2023 Member
YP
