Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/94/2016

Kulbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh JPS Batra

05 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 94 of 2016

                                                    Date of institution : 30.09.2016                                 

                                                           Date of decision    : 05.05.2017

Kulbir Singh son of Garib Singh R/o village Manakmajra, Tehsil and District Mohali, Khewatdar village Hargana, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. PSPCL through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer (SDO) sub Division Bharri, Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

 

 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                               

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :      Sh.J.P.Singh, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.

Sh. M.P.S.Batra, Adv.Cl. for OPs No. 1 & 2.

Sh. D.P.S.Kang, Adv.cl. for the applicant Kuldeep Singh.

                   The applicant, Kuldeep Singh son of Sh. Bara Singh, resident of village Baur, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed an application for impleading him as Opposite party No.3 to the present complaint in the array of parties. The applicant stated in the application that the land along with the electric motor/tubewell connection in question was agreed to be sold by its previous owner namely; Sh. Bachan Singh to the applicant, vide agreement to sell dated 29.05.2003, but said Bachan Singh did not execute the sale deed in favour of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant had to file a suit for possession by way of specific performance against said Bachan Singh bearing Civil Suit No.407-T/RBT of 12.12.2003/11 decided on 01.08.2011 titled as "Kuldeep Singh Vs. Bachan Singh". Bachan Singh died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs Pritam Kaur etc. were impleaded as his LRs in the said suit. The said suit was decreed on 01.08.2011 in favour of the applicant. The applicant filed execution application and ultimately a sale deed was executed and registered by the Court by appointing a Local Commissioner on 20.02.2013. The electric Motor/tubewell connection in question was transferred in the name of the applicant and the passbook bearing Account No.AP-20/688 was issued in the name of the applicant by the OPs. One Kamaljit Singh son of Sh. Joga Singh got transferred the electric motor/tubewell connection in question in his name on the basis of some affidavit alleged to have been executed by Bachan Singh, illegally and by concealing the true facts. Thereafter, said Kamaljit Singh transferred his land along with the electric motor/tubewell connection in question in the name of the complainant by concealing the true facts. The applicant is exclusive owner of the electric motor/tubewell connection in question and the complainant has no right, title, interest, concern or connection with the said electric motor/tubewell connection in question. The complainant in collusion with the OPs by concealing the true and material facts from this Forum and without impleading the applicant as party in the present complaint, tried to obtain order from this Forum regarding the electric motor/tubewell connection in question. Hence, the present application be allowed and applicant be impleaded as OP No.3 to the present complaint.

2.                 The complainant has contested the application and filed the reply, in which he stated that previously a motor connection No.F-598 was running in the name of Bachan Singh son of Chanan Singh and said Bachan Singh sold his agriculture land along with electric motor connection to Kamaljit Singh son of Zora Singh and motor connection passbook also transferred in the name of Kamaljit Singh. Thereafter Kamaljit Singh sold his agriculture land along with motor connection to Butta Singh son of Pal Singh, who further sold the same to complainant Kulbir Singh on 05.12.2005. Accordingly, electric motor connection No.F-598 was transferred in the name of the complainant. At the time of transfer of the electric motor connection all formalities got completed by PSPCL. Previous owner Kamaljit Singh and Butta Singh submitted duly attested affidavits and given consent to transfer of electric motor connection in the name of complainant Kulbir Singh. The complainant is owner in possession of the agriculture land and electric motor connection No. F-598, which is installed in Khasra No.877, which is exclusive possession of the complainant. It is further stated that complainant got extended load from 5 BHP to 10 BHP and from 10 BHP to 12 BHP by paying the requisite amount to OPs. The complainant with his own funds build up new Kotha for motor and made new bore and installed new submersible motor. The applicant has no locus standi to become party in the present complaint as the relation between the complainant and the OPs are of consumer and service provider and the applicant Kuldeep Singh is third party/stranger having no concern or connection with the present complaint. After denying the other averments made in the application he prayed for dismissal of the same.

3.                 After hearing the Learned counsel for the parties and going through the application alongwith Annexed document and reply, it is established that sale deed was executed and registered by the Court by appointing a Local Commissioner on 20.02.2013 in the name of the applicant. It is also evident that the electric Motor/tubewell connection in question was transferred in the name of the applicant and the passbook bearing Account No.AP-20/688 was issued in the name of the applicant by the PSPCL. On the other hand, it is also evident that the electric motor connection No.F-598 was transferred in the name of the complainant.

4.                In our opinion, if this Forum proceeds to adjudicate upon the complaint, it shall amount to upsetting the decree passed by civil court in favour of the applicant as both the parties are claiming to be the owner of electric motor connection. We are of the view that it shall take voluminous evidence to prove the allegations by way of cross examination and examination in chief and the same cannot be decided in a summary manner. The Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in case titled as Savitri Devi Vs Guru Ram Das International Airport,2015(3)CLT 415 Pb had observed “where matter cannot be adjudicated without elaborate evidence, complainant be directed to seek redressal before the Civil Court".

5.                Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment, we are of the opinion that the present case is of complicated nature. Hence, we direct the complainant to approach appropriate court of law for redressal of his grievances. All the requisite documents be returned. The present complaint alongwith the application stands disposed off.

6.                The arguments were heard on 21.04.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:05.05.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)                         President

 

(Inder Jit)                       Member