ORDER

Paramjit Singh, President

1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is an Ex-Serviceman and had been retired from Indian Army and is permanent resident of village Begowal, Tehsil Bholath, District

-2-

Kapurthala.

2. The complainant had deposited Rs.97,097/- 0n 17.9.2003 with the opposite parties for shifting of 11 K.V. Line from his Plots.

3. That on 3.4.2003, he moved an application to opposite party No. 3 for shifting of 11 KV line from his plots which is passing through his plots and deposited Rs.500/- in the office of respondent No.3 vide receipt No. 105, Book No. D-37035 dated 3.4.2003 and he also moved a letter dated 2.7.2003 for shifting of the line and thereafter the respondent No.3 issued letter memo No.4814 dated 17.9.2003 vide which it was stated that Plan for removing Poles and 11 K.V. line has been got recommended/passed from the office of respondent No.2 and estimate cost was stated in the said letter as Rs.97,097/- and the complainant was directed to deposit Rs.96,597/- after deducting Rs.500/- already deposited on 3.4.2003 in the office of respondent No.3 and accordingly, the complainant, deposited Rs.96,597/- in the office of respondent No.3 on 17.9.2003 vide receipt No. 150 Book No. D.

4 That after the deposit of Rs.97,097/- by the complainant as per the directions of respondents department nothing has been done by the respondents department for shifting the 11 K.V. Line from the plots of the complainant till today, so the complainant moved an application dated 22.9.2007 in the "Sangat Darshan Darbar" held by Superintending engineer, PSEB, Kapurthala to do the needful in the matter. The S.E. PSEB Kapurthala forwarded the same to respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 again forwarded the same to J.E. Raj Kumar, but nothing has been done so far. The complainant moved

-3-

an application in Sangat Darshan to Chief Minister, Mr. Parkash Singh Badal, held at village Begowal in the year 2008 in this respect, but no action has been taken in the the matter. The complainant made several oral as well as written requests to the respondents, but they did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Hence the present complaint.

5. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising as many as six preliminary objections by refuting all the allegations made in the complaint that the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint, the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands, he has no cause of action to file the present complaint, complaint is barred by limitation and the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties. On merits, it is admitted that complainant had deposited Rs.97,097/- and the opposite parties tried to shift the line as applied by the complainant but the officials of the respondents could not do so on account the stay order by the court of SDM, Bholath. The line could not be shifted as there was a dispute between the complainant and some other party regarding the selected route and finally the matter was stayed to by SDM, Bholath. Memo No.1394 dated 23.9.2004 was served upon the complainant through registered post calling upon him to pay the amount of the revised estimate which comes out to be Rs.1,98,966/- but he did not deposited the aforesaid amount and as such, shifting process remained pending due to the latches on the part of the complainant himself. In view of the revised

-4-

application of the complainant his case was forwarded afresh to the competent authority for the revised estimate and approval the estimated cost of which comes out to be Rs.2,47,255/- and if the complainant wants to shift his line he has to deposit the amount of the final revised estimated costs. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied. The respondents are not liable to shift the line unless and until the full amount of the shifting charges has been deposited and taking note of the revised request of the complainant he is bound to pay the revised estimate costs which is still under consideration in view of the fresh application of the complainant and as such his complaint is not maintainable in any manner.

6. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.

7. On the other hand the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OA along with document Ex.O1 to Ex.O15 and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. First of all, we will discuss the expert evidence adduced by the parties. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence report of Shri Kranti K. Sharma, Finger Prints, Handwriting and Forensic Consultant and he submitted his report which is Ex.C8. His report is that he has thoroughly and minutely examined and compared the questioned signature and handwriting of Balkar Singh with the help of different magnifiers

-5-

microscopic, lenses their enlarged photographs and other necessary instruments and is differ from questionable document which are Annexure-A and Annexure-B. He compared these documents with the admitted documents produced by the complainant.

9. On the other hand, the opposite parties have also tendered into evidence, a report of S. Sukhjinder Singh, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert Forensic Science Consultant who has also submitted his report Ex. O19. His report is that I have minutely thoroughly examined the questioned signature of Balkar Singh in English, marked as Q1 on the application dated 19.12.2008 and compared his questioned signature Q-1 with the standard signature of Balkar Singh marked as S-1 to S-5 which are present on the Vakalatnama, on the affidavit and on the complaint. To find out whether the questioned signature Q-1 tally with the standard signatures S-1 to S-5 of Balkar Singh and have been written by one and the same person or not. As per report Ex.O19, S. Sukhjinder Singh, handwriting expert observed that for the reasons mentioned in his report, he is of the opinion that the questioned signature of Balkar Singh marked as Q-1 on the application dated 19.12.2008 "tally" with the signatures S-1 to S-5 in their basic writing habit and these have been written by one and the same person.

The proceedings before the Consumer Forum are of summary in nature. These type of evidence cannot be accepted because no hand writing expert has appeared in this Forum in person to face cross-examination by a hand writing expert by the counsel for the complainant or counsel for the opposite parties. So this evidence

-6-

cannot be read into evidence.

10. Admittedly the complainant requested for the change of route of 11 K.V. electric wire This 11 K.V. electric line passes over the plot of the complainant and he wants to construct his house in this plot after his retirement from the Indian Army.

11. To connect the case of the complainant, who is Ex-Serviceman, had deposited Rs.500/- in the office of respondent No.3 vide receipt No. 105, Book No. D-37935 dated 3.4.2003 Thereafter on the demand raised by opposite party No. 3 vide memo No. 4814 dated 17.9.2003Ex.C3, the complainant also deposited Rs.96597/- with respondent No. 3 on 17.9.2003 vide receipt No. 150 Book No. D and requested for the execution of the works vide Ex.C2.

12. It is alleged by the opposite parties that the 11 K.V. Line in question could not be shifted due to some dispute between the complainant with illaqa niwasi of some other party Ex.O16 and the matter was stayed by the SDM, Bholath, as such the purposed route for the shifting of line Ex.O1 was changed and revised estimate was prepared and sanctioned by the competent authorities of the opposite parties for Rs.1,98,966/- as per Ex.O11.Accordingly the complainant was served upon through registered post Ex.O10 by the opposite party No.3 vide memo No.1394 dated 23.9.2004 calling upon him to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,01,869/- on account of revised estimate for shifting of H.T. Installation from his plots. The complainant following his oral requests to the respondents also submitted written reference dated 22.9.2007 in the "Sangat Darshan Darbar" held by Superintending Engineer PSEB to do the needful in

-7-

the matter. The complainant also moved an application in "Sangat Darshan" to Chief Minister Mr. Parkash Singh Badal held at village Begowal in the year 2008, but no action was taken by the opposite parties to accede the requests of the complainant. As per the opposite parties, the complainant never come forward to deposit the aforesaid amount, as such, the shifting process of installation remained pending due to lapses on the part of the complainant. It is also alleged by the opposite parties that the complainant moved fresh application dated 19.12.2008 Ex.O7 to the opposite party No. 3 for the change of the route on the pretext of of the dispute with some other party. So again the estimate and sanctioned by the competent authority for Rs.2,47,255/- Ex.O5 & Ex.O6.

13. On the other hand, the complainant has refuted vide Ex.CA that no such application dated 19.12.2008 was ever submitted with the respondents Department and the same is alleged to be forged and fabricated. The revised estimate prepared and sanctioned by the respondents for raising further demand of Rs.2,47,255/- to the complainant on the basis of allegedly forged document dated 19.12.2008 Ex.O7 for shifting of 11 K.V. Line tantamount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 towards the complainant.

14. We, therefore, direct the opposite parties that keeping in view the technical feasibility the 11 KV Line from the plots of the complainant should be shifted within three months after receipt of the balance amount of Rs. 1,01,869/- out of Rs.1,98,966/- from the complainant as asked by the respondent No.3 to the complainant

-8-

vide Ex.O10. The complainant is also directed to deposit Rs.1,01,869/- with opposite party No.3 as already agreed vide Ex.C5 within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.8000/- on account of mental tension and agony along with Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within two months from the receipt of copy of this order.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties through registered post free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated: Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh

26.5.2010 Member President