Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S.Panesar,President.

1. Tehal Singh, complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that  complainant is permanent resident of village Kotli Korotana Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar. The complainant is the peaceful and law abiding citizen of India. The complainant is having electric tubewell connection in his name  of 7.5 HP bearing No. T-188 in his name. Copy of the pass book is enclosed herewith. As such complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties as defined under section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act. On the midnight of  7/8.2.2015 a theft was committed by some persons and they have stolen the electric transformer of the  complainant  from his field. When the complainant came to know about the theft of electric transformer  from his field, he immediately reported the matter to the opposite parties. The opposite parties made report dated 12.2.2015 and on the basis of the report FIR No. 147 dated 23.2.2015 under section 379 of IPC has been registered at P.S. Raja Sansi District Amritsar. Copy of the FIR is enclosed herewith. After lodging the case regarding theft of electric transformer  of the complainant, the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested  them to install new electric transformer of in his field of 10 HP, but the opposite parties have been delaying the matter  on one pretext or the other . The complainant many times approached the opposite parties and requested them to install new electric transformer  as the same is very needed for cultivating his crops. But the opposite parties  always delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also made written requests to opposite parties No.2 & 3 on 26.2.2015 and requested them to  install the new electric transformer, but they did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. Copy of letter is enclosed. Instead of installing new electric transformer , opposite parties have started  alleging that there is civil litigation pending  and the status quo order has been passed in the civil litigation in favour of the complainant  but it is pertinent to mention here that the said litigation has no concern or connection with the electric transformer which has been stolen. The litigation pending is of connection No. T-190 but the electric transformer has been stolen  pertaining to electric connection No. T-188. The complainant has sought for following reliefs vide instant complaint:

1. Opposite parties be directed to install new electric transformer of 10 HP for Khata No. T-188 in the field of the complainant in place of stolen transformer.
2. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant  alongwith litigation expenses.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written version contesting the complaint by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that  complainant has not come  to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. As such he is not entitled to  any relief. The transformer relating to tubewell connection bearing account No. T-188 is in existence and the  connection is running on the spot. The complainant has intentionally concealed this fact ; that complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint ;  that complainant  has no cause of action to file the present complaint ; that complaint is not legally maintainable . On merits it is denied that theft  of transformer relating to tubewell connection bearing account No. T-188 has taken place. The fact remains that the complainant in order to misrepresent the  opposite party made a complaint dated 9.2.2015 to opposite party regarding theft of two transformers of tubewell connection bearing account No. T-188  relating to him and another transformer of tubewell connection bearing account No. T-195 of Virsa Singh son of Tara Singh. On his complaint, the matter was reported by the concerned SDO to the concerned police  station and FIR relating to theft of transformer of tubewell connection bearing account No. T-188  was got registered under section 379 IPC  with the concerned police station. The matter was also referred to the concerned official for giving report after visiting the spot  and the concerned JE Mr.Ashwani Kumar  visited the spot and reported that three transformers of tubetwell connections bearing account No. T-503, T-195 and T-190 were missing from the spot but the complainant misrepresented the concerned JE and instead of T-190, he misrepresented that the transformer of connection bearing account No. T-188  is missing . Thus report regarding missing of three transformers bearing account No. T-503, T-195 and T-188 was made by the concerned JE . Thus report regarding transformer of connection bearing account No. T-188 was wrongly made on false representation of the complainant. The complainant has been making applications to the opposite party to install new transformer  when the transformer of his tubewell connection bearing account No. T-188 is already existing  at the spot. It seems that the complainant has filed the present complaint only to take undue advantage in civil litigation. The transformer of the tubewell connection T-190 has been lost and not that of T-188 and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid to prove the case complainant stepped into the witness box and tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-20 and closed his evidence. In additional evidence Sh.Manjit Singh Bhatti,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered  copy of enquiry report conducted by PSPCL  Ex.C-21, copy of suspension order of JE Ashwani Kumar Ex.C-22 and closed the additional evidence.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.N.S.Sandhu,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence  affidavit of Sh.Sharanjit Singh,SDO Ex.OP1, copy of ledger Ex.OP2, copy of letter written by Pargat Singh to the SDO Ex.OP3, letter written to the SHO by the SDO Ex.OP4, copy of report Ex.OP5, copy of report of the JE Ex.OP6, copy of memo No. 1243 dated 11.6.2015 Ex.OP7, report Ex.OP8, copy of the map Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party. In additional evidence Sh.N.S.Sandhu, Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence copy of order of the court of Hem Amrit Mahi Ex.OP11, copy of order of the court of Surinder Singh, Addl.District Judge Ex.OP12 and closed the additional evidence on behalf of the opposite party.

5.       In rebuttal evidence Sh.Manjit Singh Bhatti,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered copy of order of the court of Sh.S.S.Sahni,Addl.District Judge Ex.C-23 and closed the rebuttal evidence on behalf of the complainant.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file. We have also gone through the written synopsis of arguments submitted by the ld.counsel for the complainant.

7.       From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that  complainant is the owner of tubewell connection bearing No. T-188 . Copy of the pass book accounts for Ex.C-1. It is also not disputed that the complainant moved an application  on 26.2.2015 regarding the theft of the transformer pertaining to tubewell connection No. T-188  on the midnight of 7/8.2.2015, copy of the application accounts for Ex.C-4. On the basis of  complaint, PSPCL authorities lodged first information report with Raja Sansi Police Station and requisite FIR was lodged, copy whereof is Ex.C-2. An enquiry was ordered by the PSPCL authorities on the basis of the complaint and detailed enquiry was conducted by the Chief Engineer, Technical Investigation and Inspection, Patiala , who submitted his report , copy whereof is Ex.C-21 on record. Vide report Ex.C-21, it was found that the transformer pertaining to tubewell connection No. T-188 has been stolen at the spot, whereas it was the case of the PSPCL authorities that it was the transformer pertaining to tubewell connection No. T-190 , which has been stolen at the spot. Rather it was further the case of the opposite party that not only that transformer of T-188 was at the spot but the tubewell of the complainant was in operation at the spot. The stand of the opposite party regarding the said fact stood falsified by the report of the department itself. But the opposite party maintained their stand throughout the proceedings before this Forum. Even during the course of arguments, the opposite party maintained their stand & insisted that  some Local Commissioner may be appointed with a direction to visit the spot and report regarding the existence of transformer of tubewell connection No. T-188 and further report regarding the working condition of the tubewell at the spot. With the concurrence of both the counsel for the parties, Sh.H.S. Nag was appointed as Local Commissioner with the direction to visit the spot and to report whether tubewell connection bearing No. T-188 was having the transformer at the spot or not. He was further directed to report whether the tubewell in connection was operational at the spot or not ? Sh.H.S. Nag visited the spot and submitted his report before this Forum on 8.7.2016 and a perusal whereof shows that the transformer of T-188 was missing at the spot and the tubewell bearing account No. T-188 was not operational . As such not only that the inquiry report of the PSPCL authorities itself but also the report of the Local  Commissioner has further fortified the stand of the complainant and it is proved on record that the transformer of T-188 in the name of Tehal Singh S/o Tara Singh is missing from the spot. PSPCL authorities are under legal obligation to install new transformer at the spot and make the tubewell connection of the complainant bearing No. T-188 operational at the spot. For the purpose ,  opposite parties are given one month’s time to do the needful. Opposite parties being deficient in service are also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant while cost of litigation are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.