Complainant Smt.Sandooran Rani 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 install a new connection and in the meanwhile temporary electricity supply be issue in her premises, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that she is a widow lady and is a trained Dai (Nurse). Since 1990 she running her clinic under the name of Sandoraan Rani Nursing in rented shop alleged to be owned by opposite party no.3 for earning her livelihood by means of self-employment. Previously electric connection No.G-11-CF-650483 X has been got disconnected by opposite party no.3 from her shop and said connection was in the name of Yashpal i.e. opposite party no.4 real brother of opposite party no.3, she was making payment of the said connection for the last 23 years and upto 13.7.2012 she has deposited her last bill. After 13.7.2012 opposite parties no.1 and 2 at the asking of co-opposite parties had removed the meter and deprived the complaint for consuming the electricity. In the year 2012, she has applied for getting the electricity connection in her name after completing all the formalities as required by the department but the connection was never released as the opposite party did not give their consent in this regard because opposite party no.3 has filed eviction petition against her and now the rent appeal titled Smt.Sandooran Rani Vs. Ashok Kumar has been decided in her favour and the impugned eviction order has been set aside by the rent appellate authority vide order dated 26.2.2016.After the passing of said order she has applied for electricity connection in her name by completing all the formalities but the opposite parties no.1 and 2 refused to install new electricity connection in her shop. She has also requested the opposite parties to install temporary connection in her shop till the issuance of new connection but they refused to do so. Previously she has also filed a complaint for the restoration of previous electricity connection which has been withdrawn by her on 13.3.2014. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply submitting therein that any person can get the electricity connection in his/her name after completing all the requisite formalities as per the terms and conditions according to the rules and regulations of the PSPCL Department. The complainant herself has admitted in her complaint that she is tenant of the shop owned by the opposite parties no.3 and 4. She intends to get the electricity connection installed in this disputed shop. As an eviction petition regarding this disputed shop filed by the Landlord was pending in the Civil Court Batala, the electricity connection could not be released to her. She has also admitted that the eviction Petition fled by the Landlord was decided against the complainant and after on she preferred an appeal against this order on 2.7.2014. The Court of Sh.Rajeev Kumar Beri Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the complainant Sandooran Rani vide order dated 26.2.2016. As such she is entitled to get the electricity connection released after the expiry of the Limitation Period of Appeal. It is particularly mentioned that previously also the complainant filed a similar complaint in this Hon’ble Forum vide CC No.426 of 2013 instituted on 12.12.2013 which was subsequently withdrawn by the complainant vide order dated 13.3.2014. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.     Opposite parties no.3 and 4 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and the electric connection in dispute was used a commercial connection in the shop in dispute and this Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the previous connection was not installed in the rented shop and hence, the previous connection was not the amenity of the tenanted premises. In fact, the opposite party no.4 was running Atta Chakki in the adjacent shop  and the previous connection was being used by the opposite party no.4 in the Atta Chakki installed near the tenanted shop and the existence of the Atta Chakki has been admitted by the complainant in her previous complaint. Hence, no electric connection was ever existed in the tenanted shop. The entire electric bills were being paid by the opposite party no.4. The story as propounded by the complainant is baseless, imaginary, concocted and without any force. 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 affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Counsel for the opposite party no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Jagir Singh S.D.O. Ex.OP1,2/1 and closed the evidence.

7.        Sh.Ashok Kumar Mahajan opposite party no.3 and 4 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-3,4/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-3,4/2 to Ex.OP-3,4/10 and closed the evidence.

8.          We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the widowed lady complainant had been admittedly running her nursing clinic from the disputed shop since the year 1990 and has been continuously using the electricity connection # G-11-CF-650483 (till 13.07.2012) that stood in the name of OP4 Yashpal and at whose (OP3 & OP4) instance the same was unceremoniously disconnected by the OP1 & OP2 service providers. Further, the said connection could not be transferred in the complainant’s name since the OP3 (OP4’s brother) has filed eviction suit against her that was decided against her in the year 2014 and she filed appeal that was decided in her favor on 26.02.2016. Presently, the complainant has applied for a new/fresh connection at the demised premises and upon OP’s refusal has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties. The complainant has filed her affidavit Ex.C1 and supporting documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C16 to prove the contents of her complaint.

9.       We further find that the OP Corporation in its written reply and the lone evidentiary document produced as its Affidavit Ex.OP1,2/1 has admittedly deposed that the impugned NRS connection was disconnected on 13.07.2012 due to dispute between the Holder and the beneficiary who were also opposing litigants in an eviction petition decided against the present complainant on 23.05.2014 with however its further appeal decided in her favor on 26.02.2016. The OP Corporation has further deposed that the second rent-appeal stood filed before the honorable Punjab & Haryana High Court and its decision will finally entitle the complainant to the fresh/ new connection or not. We find that no party has produced any stay and/or any status quo maintenance orders of any superior court and it is not understood how the OP Corporation has arrived at its self determined conclusion. We are not at all convinced with the ‘partial’ attitude deposition by the OP Corporation who being the sovereign service providers must maintain ‘impartiality’ at all costs. The pendency of rent-control ‘appeal’ before the honorable High Court sans any ‘stay-orders’ etc shall in no way bar the sanction/issuance of fresh electric connection to the lawful possessor holder of the demised premises. Moreover, the OP Corporation has failed to produce any of its rules and regulations etc barring the issuance of fresh/new connection at the premises that are subject matter of some continuing but lawful litigation. To remove all ambiguity, it be noted that ‘litigation’ has been a lawful and legal process to resolve a ‘dispute’ and in no way bars/prohibits routine processes/sanctions etc that can be legally ‘re-resolved/undone/changed’ once the final adjudication gets accomplished.

10.     We further find that the OP3 and the OP4 individuals being the interested opposite parties have jointly but vehemently contested the present complaint through the affidavit Ex.OP3,4/1 and other documents Ex.OP3,4/2 to Ex.OP3,4/10 but have failed to justify the refusal/rejection of fresh connection to the present complainant by OP1/OP2 Corporation. The previous referred to consumer complaint was for the restoration of the disconnected supply that was in the name of the OP4 and an eviction rent control petition was in progress in the local court of law and moreover the same was suo-moto withdrawn on technical grounds with permission to re-file again on the same cause of action; whereas the present complaint rests on different footings seeking a fresh connection sans any legal bar/ stay etc available on the file.              

11.     We can understand the presence of rivalry-litigant feelings with the OP3 & OP4 but the OP1/OP2 Corporation being the sovereign service providers are expected to act impartially but the available evidence on record surely establishes ‘unfair trade practice’ coupled with ‘deficiency in service’ on their part and that rakes them up for an ‘adverse’ statutory award under the applicable statute. Moreover, the impugned refusal of fresh/new connection to the complainant by the opposite party corporation has been admittedly not a matter of routine and the same has not even been proved to be in accordance with the legally accrued OP’s policy as per its terms of Sales/Distribution Policy and the Rules & Regulations etc framed, there under. The OP authorities need to learn that the honorable apex court in its one of its recent verdicts has termed ‘electricity’ as a necessity of life and not a ‘luxury’ and its deprivation to a citizen shall amount to denial of a ‘basic’ necessity.    

12.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party corporation to sanction/issue the fresh/new electricity connection to the complainant as per her requirement & needs besides to pay her Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of the present orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the complaint till actual payment.

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

                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President   

Announced:                                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

October,27 2016                                                              Member

*MK*