Punjab

Sangrur

CC/85/2015

Harpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Parmpreet Singh

04 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    85

                                                Instituted on:      19.02.2015

                                                Decided on:       04.08.2015

 

Harpal Singh son of Nachhatar Singh resident of Opposite Sewa Samiti Bhawan, Village Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its M.D. The Mall, Patiala.

2.     Asstt. Executive Engineer, PSPCL City Sub Division, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Parampreet Singh, Adv.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Inderjeet Ausht, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Harpal Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant applied for a domestic electric connection with the OP number 2 and deposited Rs.1420/- as security vide receipt dated 22.7.2014 and thereafter after completing all the formalities, the Ops issued the electric connection vide account number DL-45/707 and installed the electricity meter, but no bill was issued to the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that he received a letter number 1746 dated 5.9.2014 from the OP number 2 demanding the ownership title of the said premises where the connection was installed. It is further averred that the house of the complainant is within the red line (lal Lakir) of the village having no khasra numbers etc. It is further averred that after releasing the connection, the Ops have no power to demand the proof of ownership regarding the house.   It is further stated that after receiving notice dated 5.9.2014 the complainant filed a complaint bearing number 540 of 11.9.2014 and Forum ordered not to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant and the complaint was withdrawn on 27.1.2015 with permission to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw notice number 1746 dated 5.9.2014, to restore the electric connection in question and pay compensation for mental tension and harassment.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation,  that the complainant did not come to the Forum with clean hands are taken up.   On merits, it is admitted that the electricity connection in question was issued to the complainant after deposit of Rs.1420/- by the complainant.   It is further admitted that OP number 2 issued letter number 1746 dated 5.9.2014. It is further admitted that the complainant filed a complaint number 540 dated 11.9.2014 and the same was withdrawn by the complainant on 27.1.2015 with permission to file a fresh one.  It is further stated that the true facts are that after installation of the connection in question one Badan Singh son of Nihal Singh Nambardar of village Dhuri submitted an application on 3.9.2014 in which it was mentioned that the complainant is not the owner and he is in the illegal possession of the premises and he requested for disconnection of the electricity connection in question.  It is further stated that the land in question belongs to Samadhan and that land rooms have been constructed by the committee by the inhabitance of the village.   Thereafter OP number 2 issued letter number 1746 dated 5.9.2014 to the complainant vide which he was asked to submit the documents of ownership of the premises which the connection has been obtained within two days, but the complainant did not submit the documents regarding ownership/title in favour of the premises, as such the Ops issued PDCO number 50/103434 dated 9.9.2014 and the connection was disconnected and the meter along with 30 meter 2/C PVC has been taken into possession by the concerned JE. The complainant submitted false self declaration in the office of OP number 2 and obtained electric connection by playing the fraud.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the Op has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of letter number 1746, Ex.C-2 copy of receipt dated 22.7.2014, Ex.C-3 copy of self declaration, Ex.C-4 copy of affidavit of Madan Lal,  Ex.C-5 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of A&A form, Ex.OP-2 copy of Aadhar card, Ex.OP-3 copy of self declaration, Ex.OP-4 copy of test report, Ex.OP-5 SCO, Ex.OP-6 copy of application, Ex.OP-7 copy of letter dated 5.9.2014, Ex.OP-8 copy of PDCO, Ex.OP-9 affidavit, Ex.OP-10 copy of voter list, Ex.OP-11 copy of jamabandi and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact of the OPs that after deposit of amount of Rs.1420/- on 22.7.2014, the OPs released electric connection to the complainant bearing account number DL-45/707, but the same was disconnected vide PDCO dated 9.9.2014 on the ground that the complainant was having any legal occupancy of the premises in dispute where the electric connection was installed and disconnected.  The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs on the grounds that once the Ops have released the electric connection, the Ops have no authority to disconnect the same.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has vehemently contended that since the complainant failed to submit any documentary evidence/proof to show that he is in the legal occupancy of the premises in question, as such, the connection was disconnected rightly.

 

6.             Ex.C-1 is the copy of letter dated 5.9.2014 issued by the OPs whereby the OPs have demanded from the complainant the proof regarding ownership where the connection in question was installed by the OPs, failing which to face disconnection of the connection. Ex.C-3 is the copy of self declaration submitted by the complainant to the OPs wherein it has been stated that he is the ownership of the land in question and further it has also been stated that in case the above declaration of the complainant is found false, then the Ops will be at liberty to disconnect the electric connection in question permanently.  Now, the question for determination before us is whether the OPs have rightly disconnected the electric connection in question or not. 

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the whole case file and found that the complainant has miserably failed to prove on record any documentary evidence showing that he is the lawful and legal occupant of the land in question, where he got the connection in question installed, which was later on disconnected by the Ops on 9.9.2014.  Ex.R-2 is the copy of aadhar card, which shows that the complainant is the resident of village Dhandiwal. Again the OPs have produced the copy of voter list Ex.OP-10 which shows that the complainant is the resident of Village Dhandiwal and whole of his family members are living at Village Dhandiwal and the name of the complainant in that list is situated at serial number 34.  Again the learned counsel for the Ops has produced on record the copy of jamabandi, Ex.OP-11 which shows that the complainant is the resident of village Dhandiwal, but has not produced any documentary evidence even showing that he is residing at village Dhuri.   We have also perused the copy of affidavit of one Madan Lal Ex. Sarpanch, which is on record as Ex.C-4 wherein it has been mentioned that the complainant has been residing in the premises in dispute for the last fourteen years and earlier there were cremation ground and thereafter the cremation ground was shifted to another place and there is no writing regarding the occupation of the complainant on that place.  In this affidavit Ex.C-4, Shri Madan Lal has stated that he has no objection if the connection is given to the complainant.  It is worth mentioning here that the deponent Shri Madan Lal, whose affidavit on record is Ex.C-4 is not the owner of the premises in question, where the complainant is praying for release of connection, as such, Shri Madan Lal has no authority to say that he has no objection if the connection is released and as such his affidavit is not at all helpful to the case of the complainant.  In the circumstances, the fact remains that the complainant has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to show that he is the legal occupant of the premises in question, where he has sought release of the electric connection.  Further it is worth mentioning here that as per Condition number 3.3 (1) of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, it has been provided that the applicant shall produce documentary evidence to show that he is the lawful owner or occupier of the premises wherein he wants the connection to be released. If he is a tenant or a lease holder and is unable to produce the consent of the owners/land lord for availing electric connection, he shall indemnify the PSPCL in the prescribed form against any action brought by the owner/land lord against the PSPCL for release of the connection.   But, in the present case, as discussed above, the complainant has not produced on record any documentary evidence to show that he is in the legal occupancy of the premises in question.   As such, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops in disconnecting the electric connection in question.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 4, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member