| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 500 of 2015 Date of Institution: 12.08.2015 Date of Decision: 21.04.2016 Hira Singh son of Surjit Singh, resident of V & P.O: Kale Chanupur, Dera Sarup Singh, Ram Tirath Road, Amritsar. Complainant Versus - Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala service through SDO West Sub Division, Opposite O.C.M. Mills Chheharata, Amritsar.
- Surjit Singh son of Banta Singh, resident of House No. 3536/6, Model Gram Cheema Park, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.-Given Up.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1: Sh. N.S.Sandhu, Advocate For Opposite Party No.2: Given Up. Coram Sh.S.S.Panesar, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.S.S. Panesar, President. - Sh.Hira Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he is the holder of electricity connection bearing account No. 2315(Old) New No. A25JW242685Y installed in his residential house situated at V & P.O: Kale Ghanupur, Dera Sarup Singh, Ram Tirath Road, Amritsar which he obtained from Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL in his name after completing all the requisite formalities and he is using the same for residence purpose. The complainant has been regularly paying the bills regarding use of electricity to Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL from time to time and nothing is due/ outstanding against him till date. As such, the complainant is consumer under Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL and has legal right to file the present complaint. Opposite Party No.2 is father of complainant and the house in which the said connection is installed belongs to Opposite Party No.2. At the time of installation of this connection, Opposite Party No.2 had raised no objection to it. Opposite Party No.2 i.e. father of the complainant got his second marriage performed with one lady and left the house since long and is residing at Ludhiana with his second wife at the address given in the head note of the complaint. On the other hand, the complainant alongwith his family is residing in the house where the electric connection in dispute is installed. For the past some time, Opposite Party No.2 started threatening the complainant to get the said electricity connection disconnected in connivance with some officials of Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL and at his instance, even some officials of Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL had come to disconnect this connection. As such, the complainant was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction against Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL for restraining them from disconnecting the said electricity connection forcibly, illegally in any manner and he was granted ad-interim injunction regarding disconnection of this connection by the court of Smt.Navreet Kaur, ld.Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar on 11.9.2014. However, said suit of the complainant was dismissed in default on 18.5.2015 by the said court and the cause of action was not surviving and ad-interim injunction already stood vacated, as such the complainant did not move the restoration of that connection. Taking advantage of this fact with malafide intention, ulterior motive and in connivance with each other, the officials of Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL illegally, unauthorizedly, forcibly disconnected the said connection of the complainant on 17.7.2015 at the instance of Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 had no right to get the said connection disconnected which is in the name of the complainant and he is lawful consumer. If at all the house belongs to Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 is objecting to the running of the said connection, then at the most Opposite Party No.1 can obtain the Indemnity Bond from the complainant as per the sales regulations and the complainant is always ready to furnish the requisite bond and to do all other legal formalities for the same, but the officials of the Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL have been threatening the complainant time and again to disconnect the connection. This act of Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL is wrong, illegal, malafide, collusive arbitrary, against the law, rules, principle of the natural justice and also amounts to great negligence, carelessness, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the prayer, the complainant has sought direction against Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL to restore the electric connection in dispute immediately and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- with costs of proceedings to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. Hence this complaint.
- Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL put in appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the instant complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint against Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL; that the complainant is not owner of the property where the electricity connection in dispute was installed. The complainant has not shown or given any document showing his possession of the said property where the said electricity connection was installed and as such, the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, the facts referred in the complaint have specifically been denied. It is stated that father of the complainant namely Surjit Singh is owner of the house and he had moved an application for disconnection of the said electricity connection. It is submitted that now the said electricity connection has been disconnected. It is denied that the complainant is lawful consumer of the said connection. It is also denied that the complainant has legal right to enjoy the same for his use and benefit. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The suit filed by the complainant has already been dismissed in default on 18.5.2015 and ad interim injunction order stood vacated automatically and the electricity connection in question has rightly been disconnected on 17.7.2015. The complainant has absolutely no right to get the same restored through the indulgence of this Forum and a prayer for the dismissal of the complaint with costs was made.
- Vide separate statement dated 28.8.2015, ld.counsel for the complainant gave up Opposite Party No.2.
- In his bid to prove the case, ld.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence the affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and produced copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of memo No. 2980 dated 29.8.2014 Ex.C3, copy of service connection order Ex.C4, copy of order of the court of Smt.Navreet Kaur, ld.Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar Ex.C5, copy of residence certificate of the complainant Ex.C6, copy of driving license of complainant Ex.C7, copy of voter card of complainant Ex.C8, copy of plaint Ex.C9, copies of orders of the court Ex.C10 and Ex.C11, copy of disconnection order Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- To rebut the aforesaid evidence, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL tendered into evidence affidavit of Pawan Kumar, SDO Ex.OP1, copy of memo No. 2980 dated 29.8.2014 Ex.OP2, copy of SCO Ex.OP3, copies of orders dated 18.5.2015 of the court of Smt.Navreet Kaur, ld.Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar Ex.OP4 and Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL.
- We have heard the ld.counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
- It is not disputed that the complainant applied for electricity connection in dispute which was granted to the complainant by Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL after getting performed all the necessary formalities for grant of connection. It is also not disputed that A & A form was executed by the complainant with Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, at that time. As such, the relationship of consumer and service provider existed inter-se parties. Only dispute between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL has been that the complainant was not owner of the premises where the electricity connection in dispute bearing account No. 2315(Old) New No. A25JW242685Y was installed at present and it is one Surjit Singh father of the complainant who is owner of the said house. It is the case of Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL that disconnection of the electricity connection in dispute was made on the basis of an application moved by Surjit Singh to PSPCL authorities, but however, no such application has seen light of the day in this Forum. It is also on record that the electricity connection in dispute has been restored during the pendancy of this complaint vide order of this Forum dated 5.10.2015 and at present the electricity connection in dispute is running on the spot. It is not denied that it is the complaint who is occupying the house where the electricity connection in dispute is installed. There is privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL and Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL and complainant are governed by terms and conditions of the application/ agreement executed inter-se them and Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL can not wriggle out there from. It is the admitted case that a sum of Rs.3854/- is outstanding against the complainant and the complainant vide statement dated 7.9.2015 has categorically admitted that he is ready to pay the amount of Rs.3854/- outstanding against him. Since the complainant is licensee under Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL and Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL can not revoke the license of the complainant without any rhyme or reason. Simple fact that civil suit has been dismissed in default has nothing to do with the principle of res-judicata and res-judicata will not apply in this case. Reliance in this case can be had on Rajinder Prasad Vs. Ansal Properties and Industries (P) Ltd. 2006(1) CLT (Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) wherein it has been laid down that “we are, however, unable to sustain the finding of the District Forum that the complaint, filed before it was not maintainable because the same was not decided on merits, but was dismissed in default as per admitted facts and therefore, the principle of res judicata would not apply. Even otherwise under section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act a separate and additional remedy is available to a consumer.” In Indian Machinery Company Vs. M/s.Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. 2016(2) Civil Court Cases 209 (SC), it has been laid down that we are of the opinion that the second complaint filed by the appellant was maintainable on the facts of this case and simply because the previous case was dismissed in default of non appearance of the complainant, second complaint was maintainable and is not hit by the principle of res judicata.
- In our considered opinion, the complainant has been able to make out a case for restoration of electricity connection in dispute which has already been temporarily restored during the pendancy of this complaint and order regarding restoration is made absolute and Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL is restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection in dispute standing in the name of the complainant permanently, however with a rider that the complainant shall continue depositing the bills of consumption of electricity and other charges from time to time as imposed by Opposite Party No.1-PSPCL. The complaint stands allowed accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum Dated: 21.04.2016. (S.S.Panesar) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
