| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 96 of 21.3.2017 Decided on: 1.4.2021 Sham Lal aged 54 years son of Sh.Sobha Ram, resident of Main Road, Gurbax Colony, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its CMD, Head office : The Mall, Patiala.
- Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division West Commercial (Fort) PSPCL, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Arun Attri, counsel for complainant. Sh.J.S.Sandhu, counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Sham Lal (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act.
Facts of the complaint - Briefly the case of the complainant is that his father Sobha Ram was the owner of two shops near Ganda Nala, Gurbax Colony, Patiala, who expired on 6.7.2009 and after his death the movable and immovable proper was devolved to the complainant and others and accordingly the complainant is the owner of said two shops and he has given the one shop on rent to one Manohar Lal and the second to Paramjit Singh.
- It is averred that ejectment petition was filed against Paramjit Singh in which he used to tender the rent in the court. It is averred that Manohar Lal tenant had not deposited the electricity bills as a result of which electricity connection bearing a/c No.GC09/1023 in the name of the complainant was disconnected and the complainant had to file a complaint before this Commission which was allowed.
- It is further averred that electricity connection bearing a/c No.3000013822 installed in the shop given on rent to Paramjit Singh was running in the name of complainant since 21.2.2002 and the electricity bills were paid regularly by the tenant but to the utter surprise of the complainant the OPs wrongly and illegally removed the electric meter and disconnected the connection and illegally installed a new meter and issued a new electric connection bearing a/c No.3003354543 on 12.10.2016 in the name of Jasbir Singh inspite of the fact that the civil suits filed by him against the father of the complainant were dismissed. The said illegal act of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to remove the meter and electric connection installed in the name of Jasbir Singh and to install the meter and electric connection bearing a/c No.3000013822 in the name of the complainant; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, tension and harassment to the complainant and also to pay Rs.10000/- as costs of litigation.
Reply/Written Statement - Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In the written statement it is admitted that the complainant was the consumer of the electricity connection bearing a/c No.3000013822, which has been disconnected. It is also admitted that the connection in the said shop was released to the complainant in the Non Residential category. It is further admitted that the OPs have released the connection in the name of Jasbir Singh on filing the application by him that he is the owner of the premises in which the connection in dispute is installed and said Jasbir Singh had also submitted some documents showing his title to the property and on his request another connection was allowed in the premises. As such the OPs have rightly and legally disconnected the connection. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
-
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C15 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sandeep Puri, SDO/Operation PSPCL alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP17 and closed the evidence.
-
- Both the parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs and Sobha Ram, father of the complainant was the owner of two shops and he died on 6.7.2009 and after his death the movable and immovable property devolved into the complainant and others and out of the said two shops one was on rent with Sh.Manohar Lal and the other with Paramjit Singh.The ld. counsel further argued that the ejectment petition was filed against Paramjit Singh and was deposing the rent in the court. The ld. counsel further argued that Manohar Lal tenant had not deposited the electricity bills with the OPs and with malafide intention and the electricity connection in the name of the complainant was disconnected and the complainant has to file a complaint before this Forum and was allowed. The ld. counsel further argued that electricity connection bearing a/c No.3000013822 was running in the name of complainant since 21.2.2002 in the shop which was on rent with Paramjit Singh and the electricity bills had been paid by the tenant. The ld. counsel further argued that the OPs illegally removed the meter and electric connection of this shop and new meter is in the name of Jasbir Singh was installed. The ld. counsel further argued that Jasbir Singh has filed a civil suit against the father of complainant which was dismissed on 24.12.2015 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala. It is further argued that said Jasbir Singh also filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the OPs and father of the complainant on 31.3.2009 which was also dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala on 4.4.2015.The ld. counsel further argued that wrong connection has been installed in the name of Jasbir Singh and as such complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that electricity connection has been installed in the name of Jasbir Singh who has claimed to be the owner of the premises and the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove the case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per his complaint,Ex.C1 is the rent deed between Paramjit Singh and Sobha Ram,Ex.C2 is another rent deed between Manohar Lal and Sobha Ram,Ex.C3 is the statement of Paramjit Singh given in the court of Rent Controller, Patiala on 14.5.2015,Ex.C4 is rent petition which was withdrawn, Ex.C5 is also copy of rent petition for depositing rent, Ex.C6 is statement of Sham Lal, Ex.C7 is also petition in which rent was tendered,Ex.C8 is petition filed by Sohba Ram against PSPCL and the petition was allowed and the OPs were directed to release the connection within one month,Ex.C9 is the bill in the name of Sham Lal,Ex.C10 is the bill in the name of Jasbir Singh, Ex.C11 is the judgment Ld.Civil Judge Jr. Division, Patiala filed by Jasbir Singh against Shobha Ram and others and this suit was for declaration and was dismissed vide detailed judgment,Ex.C14 is the decree sheet in the case filed by Jasbir Singh against PSPCL for permanent injunction and said suit was dismissed as Jasbir Singh has failed to prove the entitlement to get the electricity connection installed in his name,Ex.C15 is the death certificate of Sobha Ram.
- On the other hand Sh.Sandeep Puri, SDO has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed that the connection was disconnected on the request of Jasvir Singh,Ex.OP1 is the bill in the name of Jasbir Singh,Ex.OP7 is the letter written by Jasbir Singh to Assistant Executive Engineer, Patiala.
- There is copy of judgment, Ex.C11 on the file passed by Ld.Civil Judge Junior Division, Patiala. This suit was for declaration filed by Jasbir Singh against Shobha Ram father of the complainant and Paramjit Singh and Manohar Lal, in which Shobha Ram contested the complaint and the suit was dismissed vide detailed and comprehensive judgment. So it is clear that Jasbir Singh has lost the suit for declaration of the property in dispute.
- There is copy of decree sheet,Ex.C14.The suit was filed by Jasbir Singh against PSPCL and Shobha Ram and was dismissed. It was held that the plaintiff Jasbir Singh has failed to prove that he is entitled to electricity connection installed in his name in the suit property and as such he has also lost suit for declaration.
- It is not clear that on what basis the OPs/PSPCL has issued the connection in the name of Jasbir Singh without verifying any document on the file.There is application filed by Jasbir Singh the copy of which is Ex.OP7, in which it is mentioned that electricity connection be disconnected. But as per the record the connection stand in the name of Jasbir Singh at the spot and the shop is on rent with one Paramjit Singh. So when Jasbir Singh has already lost for declaration qua owner of the property and he has also not tenant, so PSPCL has no right to give connection in the name of Jasbir Singh.
- So due to our above discussion the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to give a new connection in the name of Sham Lal complainant after verifying ownership. As the shop is on rent so the connection be released on the same day so as the tenant does not suffer. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
ANNOUNCED DATED:1.4.2021 Y.S.Matta Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member Member President | |
