Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/50/2015

Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCLTD - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Rajmat Singh

27 Jul 2016

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2015

                                                            Date of institution:  20.05.2015                  

                                                            Date of decision  :   27.07.2016

Rajinder Singh son of Bhim Singh son of Sham Singh resident of Buchrre, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, Khewatdar of village Ladpuri, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Senior Executive Engineer P.S.P.C.L., Division Khanna, District Ludhiana.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Sub Division Engineer PSPCL Bharri, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
4. Ajit Singh Son of Sarwan Singh S/o Lalu, resident of village Ladpuri, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

  …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                   Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :        Sh. Rajmat Singh, Adv. Cl. for the complainant                                          Sh. M.P.S.Batra, Adv. Cl. for OPs No.1 to 3.                                                       Sh.M.S.Salana, Adv.Cl. for OP No.4.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Rajinder Singh son of Bhim Singh son of Sham Singh resident of Buchrre, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, Khewatdar of village Ladpuri, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   Previously Ajit Singh son of Sarwan Singh son of Lalu Singh was holder of Electric Motor Connection bearing A/C No. AP 30/501 installed in Khasra No.87/1 in his land situated at village Ladpuri, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, which has been purchased by the complainant. Now, there is no land in the name of Ajit Singh in the said village. Baljit Singh son of Baldev Singh resident of village Ladpuri sold his land, vide sale deeds dated 18.02.2009 and 06.07.2011, along with all other rights appurtenant thereto to Complainant Rajinder Singh. Thereafter Hosiar Singh son of Sarwan Singh resident of village Ladpuri also sold his land measing 0-16 Biswa 2 Biswasi, vide three separate sale deeds dated 08.05.2009, 06.04.2011 and 05.11.2014, to the complainant and mutation has already been sanctioned in the name of the complainant. Thereafter, the land was partitioned between the co-sharers and the land in which the said electric connection is installed, has fallen in the share of the complainant. The complainant is in possession of the land bearing Khasra No.87/1 prior to the registered partition.  Now, OP No.4 wants to get disconnect the said electric motor connection and also wants to shift the same in connivance with OPs No. 1 to 3, which will deprive of the complainant from the source of irrigation. The complainant approached so many times to the SDO, PSPCL, Sub Division Bharri for effecting the change of name for electric motor connection in question from Ajit Singh to the name of complainant as the same is affixed with the land not with the owner. But the S.D.O. of said Division has been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other, which amounts to deficiency in service on the parts of the OPs. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs No.1 to 3 to effect the change of name of the electric Motor connection in question from Ajit Singh to the name of complainant and also to restrain OPs No. 1 to 3 from shifting the said connection to any other place.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the OPs. OPs No.1 to 3, in their written version raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is beyond the scope of the previsions of the Consumer Protection Act; this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter related to Civil Nature and the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and same is misuse and abuse of the process of law. As regards to the facts of the complaint, OPs No.1 to 3 stated that no application of change of name or shifting of connection was moved by the complainant or any other person in their office. It is further stated that complainant is not their consumer and there is no agreement between the complainant and the PSPCL and having no relationship of consumer and service provider. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   In reply to the complaint OP No.4 also raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and has not come with clean hands; the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint and the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties. As regards to the facts of the complaint, OP No.4 stated that he never sold the electric motor connection in question to the complainant. OP No.4 is the true owner of the said electric motor connection. The complaint is barred under order 32 of CPC as proceedings against an unsound mind/mentally infirm person are not maintainable. The complainant has no right, title, interest, concern or connection with the electric motor connection and he never used the same. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                   In order to prove his complaint the complainant tendered in evidence attested copy of jamabandi for the year 1991-92 Ex. C-1, Jamabandi for the year 2011-12 Ex. C-2, attested copies of sale deeds Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-5, Khasra Girdawari Ex. C-6, attested copy of Inderaj Jamabandi for the year 2006-07 Ex. C-7, attested copies of sale deeds Ex. C-8 and Ex. C-9, affidavit of complainant Ex. C-10 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs No. 1 to 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Er. Ashok Kumar SDO/AEE Ex.OP1/1, attested copies of bill ledger Ex. OP1/2 and closed the evidence. OP No.4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Hoshiar Singh Ex. OP4/1 along with true copy of medical certificate Ex. OP4/2 and closed the evidence.

6.                   The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that OP No.4 in connivance with OPs No. 1 to 3 had been attempting to get the electricity connection disconnected and get the same shifted from the land of the complainant. He pleaded that the complainant had several times approached OPs No. 1 to 3 to transfer the said connection in the name of the complainant, as he had purchased the said land, vide sale deeds dated 08/05/2009,06/04/2011 and 05/11/2014. The ld. counsel also pleaded that OPs No.1 to 3 on 01/05/2015 refused to transfer the said electricity connection in the name of the complainant despite the fact that the complainant automatically stepped into the shoes of OP No.4 after he purchased the said land alongwith the electricity connection. The ld. counsel has cited the following case laws, before this Forum:-

a)         Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Balu Ram, 2015(1)CLT 151;

b)         Hakim Singh Vs. Ram Sanehi and others, 2001(3) LJR, 15;

c)         Sat Pal Vs. P.S.E.B through its Secretary and others, 2006(2) CPC, 137;

d)         Mrs. Maya Vaid Vs. Dr. G.S.Shandil, 2006 CTJ 294

7.                   At the very outset, the ld. counsel for OPs No. 1 to 3 has made a submission that his objection with regard to maintainability of the present complaint be decided first, before going into merits of the case. The ld. counsel stated that it is evident from the pleadings that the dispute is between the private parties and the matter is of civil nature. He pleaded that OP No.4 has objection with regard to transfer of the connection, thus the complainant should have filed a suit for declaration and sought injunction from the civil court against OP No.4. The ld. counsel also pleaded that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and the complainant has approached this Forum only to save court fee. The ld. counsel further pleaded that the complainant has failed to establish on record, as  to when the complainant had requested OPs No. 1 to 4 for transfer of connection in his name. The ld. counsel argued that complainant had never approached OPs No.1 to 3 and thus there was no question of refusing the complainant. He also argued that complainant has failed to produce any document on record that can prove that he applied for transfer and OPs No. 1 to 3 refused/rejected his request. The ld. counsel further argued that no deficiency of service had been committed by OPs No.1 to 3 and if the complainant wants to get the said connection transferred in his name, complainant is required to apply for the same after following the prescribed procedure.

8.                   On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.4 has stated that the OP had never given any right to the complainant for transferring the said electric motor connection in the name of the complainant. He submitted that in case OP No.4 would have sold the connection alongwith the land, the said fact would be mentioned in the sale deed. The ld. counsel pleaded that the present complaint is not maintainable, as the complainant is not a consumer.

9.                   After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions and it is also evident from the copies of the sale deeds alongwith mutation i.e Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 that the said land had been purchased by the complainant. In view of the case laws cited by the complainant, the complainant is a consumer.  Complainant has deposed vide affidavit i.e Ex.C-10 that OPs No.1 to 3 on 01/05/2015 refused to change of name with regard to electric motor connection but the complainant has failed to produce any document on record  to prove, as to on which date the complainant filed an application for change of name before OP No.1 to 3. The complainant has also failed to produce any rejection or refusal letter issued by OPs No. 1 to 3. In case the complainant had applied and OPs No.1 to 3 had refused to change of name, the complainant could have filed an application for production of the said documents before this Forum. In order to prove Er.Ashok Kumar has deposed vide affidavit i.e Ex.OP-1 and stated that till date the complainant has not approached the OPs for change of name and placed on record bill ledger i.e Ex.OP-1/2, whereby the said connection is in name of Ajit Singh-OP No.4. It is evident that OPs No.1 to 3 are ready and willing to change the name, subject to complainant approaches them as per their prescribed Rules and Regulation. The Ld. counsel for the complainant relied upon clause 29.7 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual regarding Simultaneous shifting and change of name in case of AP Connection that " Any agriculture tube well connection in the state can be shifted to any other place in the state only in the name of existing consumer or his family members provided the original consumer or his family has got minimum 1 acre of agriculture land at the new site and as proof the copy of the Fard authenticating the ownership of the land shall be submitted.  The word family includes the consumer, his/her wife husband children grandchildren and parents," and pleaded that the complainant is entitled for transfer of the electricity connection in question. But as per material placed on record there is nothing to show that the complainant had ever applied for transfer of the said connection.

10.                 Accordingly in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that OPs No.1 to 3 had not committed any deficiency in service, as the complainant has failed to establish his case against OPs No.1 to 3. In our opinion the main dispute is between the complainant and OP No.4, for which we grant liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court for the same. The present complaint is hereby disposed of. Parties to bear their own cost. 

11.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 22.07.2016 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: 27.07.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)               President

 

 

                                                                               (Veena Chahal)                                                                                            Member

 

 

(A.B.Aggarwal)             Member