PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

These revision petitions arise out of the common order of the State Commission; hence, decided by common order.

2.      These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1002 of 2008 – Nirmal Singh Vs. Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. & Ors.  and in Appeal No. 1032 of 2008 – Nirmal Singh Vs. Lakhwinder Singh @ Pamma & Ors.   by which, while allowing appeal of OPs and dismissing appeal of complainant, complaint was dismissed.

3.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner possesses 5 acres of land and to irrigate the same in which he had sown paddy crop applied for temporary tube well connection to OP No. 3/respondent and connection was released on 4.7.2007. On 5.7.2007, OP No. 4 to 7 illegally disconnected electric supply and removed material from the spot with connivance of employees of OP No. 1 to 3.  Complainant moved application on 5.7.2007 to OP No. 3 for restoration and also moved application to SSP for taking action against OP No. 4 to 7, but neither any action was taken, nor electricity connection was restored and in such circumstances, complainant suffered loss of crop.  Complainant also filed writ petition before Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble High Court directed complainant to make representation to OP No. 2 for passing necessary orders. Complainant made representation and connection was restored by OP No. 1 to 3 on 5.9.2007.  Complainant suffered loss due to disconnection and ultimately he was compelled to sow fodder in the land. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 to 3 resisted complaint and admitted release of temporary connection and further submitted that application received from complainant was sent to SHO, Sadar, Faridkot for inquiry.  It was further submitted that OP No. 3 wrote letter dated 29.8.2007 to the complainant for supplying material for connection and material was supplied on 5.9.2007 and connection was restored on 6.9.2007 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  OP No. 4 to 7 resisted complaint and denied allegation of removing electric connection and material and further submitted that no offence was committed by them and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint partly and directed OP 4 to 7 to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest.  Complainant as well as OP No. 4 to 7 filed appeals before learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal of complainant with cost of Rs.10,000/- and allowed appeal of OP No. 4 to 7 against which, these revision petitions have been filed.

4.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties and authorized  representative of Respondent No. 4 to 7 and perused record.

5.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as temporary connection was disconnected and material was removed by OP No. 4 to 7 with connivance of employees of OP No. 1 to 3, learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint against OP No. 1 to 3 and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal of complainant with cost and allowing appeal of OP; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be allowed against all the OPs.  On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 3 and authorized representative of Respondent No. 4 to 7 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

6.      Perusal of record clearly reveals that OP No. 1 to 3 by letter dated 29.8.2007 asked complainant to provide necessary material for restoration of connection and vide letter dated 5.9.2007, complainant provided material after purchase and connection was restored on 6.9.2007.  In such circumstances, no deficiency can be imputed on the part of OP No. 1 to 3 and learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint against Respondent No. 1 to 3 and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal  against OP NO. 1 to 3 with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

7.      As far deficiency of service on the part of OP No. 4 to 7 is concerned, Hon’ble High Court dismissed Criminal Misc. Case against OP No. 4 to 7.  Learned State Commission rightly observed that complainant nowhere mentioned  in the complaint that he availed any service from OP No. 4 to 7 for any consideration and as there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and OP No. 4 to 7 or any relationship between OP No. 1 to 3 and OP No. 4 to 7 as master and servant, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal of OP No. 4 to 7.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not prove that there was any relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and OP No. 4 to 7 and in such circumstances, learned State Commission rightly allowed appeal of OP No. 4 to 7.

8.      I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and both the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.

9.      Consequently, revision petitions filed by petitioner against the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab  in Appeal No. 1002 of 2008 – Nirmal Singh Vs. Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. & Ors.  and in Appeal No. 1032 of 2008 – Nirmal Singh Vs. Lakhwinder Singh @ Pamma & Ors.  are dismissed with no order as to costs.