DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/10/462 of 15.6.2010 Decided on: 19.10.2010 Ram Chand aged 57 years son of Sh.Baru Singh resident of Village Sidhuwal, Tehsil and District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Power Corporation (formerly known as P.S.E.B.), Head Office, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. 2. The A.E.E./S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Sub Division, Rakhra,Tehsil and District Patiala. 3. Mukhtiar Singh son of Sh.Mohinder Singh resident of Village Sidhuwal, Tehsil and District Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Achhar Kumar, Advocate For opposite parties: Smt.Neena Kaushal, Advocate No.1&2 For opposite party No.3: Ex-parte. ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Ram Chand has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That the complainant is having his agricultural land comprised of Khewat/Khatoni No.461/622,Khasra No.1618/559(0-2),1675/602(0-11),1679/612(0-7),625(6-5),2186/629(0-2),632(6-5),2870/645(5-14) in the village Sidhuwal,Tehsil and District Patiala and for irrigating this land, the complainant vide application No.22707AP/4.10.2007 applied to the opposite parties No.1&2 for the electric tubewell connection and the opposite parties No.1&2 agreed to release the connection subject to the condition that all the material i.e. Transformer, a cable wire, electric poles etc. etc. will be purchased by the complainant by depositing the sale price of the said material with them. That as per direction of the opposite parties No.1&2 the complainant paid the money to the opposite parties No.1&2 for the purchase of above said material. The officials of the opposite parties No.1&2 assured the complainant that whole of the material including the transformer is the individual property of the complainant. That the Senior Executive Engineer(West),P.S.E.B. approved the sketch for the installation of transfer at point ’B’ for the supply of electricity from 11KV Feeder 220KV Grid Rodewal Bakshiwala and accordingly the opposite parties No.1&2 installed the transformer at point ’B’ for getting the supply of electricity from 11KV Feeder 220 KV Gride Rodewal Bakshiwala as shown in the sketch approved by the Senior Executive Engineer(West) and released the electric tubewell connection in the name of the complainant. That as whole of the sale price of the material i.e. transformer, cable wire and electric poles etc. were borne by the complainant so the said material is the individual property of the complainant and the opposite parties No.1to3 or any other person have no concern with the same. That now the opposite parties No.1&2 are trying to release/give the electric tubewell connection in favour of opposite party no.3 from the transformer installed at point’B’ which is the individual property of the complainant and this act on the part of the opposite parties No.1&2 amounts to unfair trade and it also caused mental tension agony and harassment to the complainant. That the complainant requested the officials of the opposite parties No.1&2 not to give the electric connection in favour of opposite party no.3 from the transformer in question but the opposite parties No.1&2 paid no heed.. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1&2 appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. Notice of the complaint was also given to the opposite party no.3 where in he was directed to put in appearance in the Forum on 27.7.2010,but he having failed to put in appearance was proceeded against exparte on 27.7.2010. 4. In the written reply filed by opposite parties No.1&2 it is alleged that the opposite parties are not trying to release the electric tubewell connection in favour of the opposite party no.3 from the transformer of the complainant. That the opposite party no.3 has already tubewell connection which was only shifted to another bore due to fault of his old bore and his connection was installed on separate transformer. The opposite parties did not interfere in the transformer of the complainant, as such any act on the part of the opposite parties does not amount to unfair trade and it is also did not cause mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The opposite parties did not give any electric connection from the transformer in question so the question of any request of the complainant does not arise at all. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 5. Today the case was fixed for evidence of the complainant. No evidence of the complainant was present. The complainant was granted last opportunity for today to produce his entire evidence. But inspite of the last opportunity the complainant has not bothered to step in the witness box in support of his case. The learned counsel for the complainant requested for another adjournment which was declined and evidence of the complainant was closed. 6. The perusal of the record shows that there is not an iota of evidence on the record to prove if there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 7. In the result we hold that the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated.19.10.2010 President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
