Complaint under Section 12 of the <br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh. Dharam Singh, President.<br /> Smt. D.K.Khosa Member.<br /> Dr. H.L.Mittal Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh. M.S. Brar counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and 2.<br /> Sh. Harinder Pal Singh opposite party No. 3.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> DHARAM SINGH PRESIDENT<br /> Manjit Kaur complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite party No. 1 and 2 to effect change of name regarding electric tubewell connection (AP Category) bearing account No. RR-220 in the name of complainant and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that previously AP tubewell connection bearing account No. RR-220 was released in the name of the opposite party No. 3 by the opposite party No. 1 and 2. The opposite party No. 3 in the year of 1994 sold the land in which the disputed electric connection is installed to the complainant and one Charanjit Kaur and on the same day the opposite party No. 3 gave an affidavit about his connection to change the name of the electric connection of the tubewell bearing account No. RR-220 to the name of the complainant and said Charanjit Kaur and since then the complainant and said Charanjit Kaur are in possession of the said electric connection and paid all the electricity bills. On the basis of said affidavit the complainant has applied for change of name regarding above said electric connection in her name and also deposited Rs.1000/- with the opposite party No. 1 and 2 as security vide receipt dated 15.4.2004 and also submitted all the relevant documents regarding change of name of the said electric connection and said Charanjit Kaur has also gave her no objection about change of name to the complainant. The complainant has also completed all the required formalities for the same purpose. So she is consumer of the opposite parties. Thereafter the opposite party No. 3 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the opposite party No. 1 and 2 and the complainant and said Charanjit Kaur but the same was withdrawn by the opposite party No. 3 on 31.1.2007 and further give a fresh application to the opposite party No. 1 and 2 giving no objection regarding change of name of the said electric connection in the name of the complainant, but the opposite party No. 1 and 2 has not effected the change of name of connection in favour of the complainant without any reasonable cause inconvenience with the opposite party No. 3. The complainant has requested the opposite parties so many times to effect change of name of the electric tubewell connection in the name of the complainant but the opposite party No. 2 flatly refused to effect change of name in favour of complainant without disclosing any reason which amounts to clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant for which the complainant claims a compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite party No. 1 and 2 besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 13.07.2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice, the opposite party No. 1 and 2 appeared through Sh M.S. Brar Advocate and filed reply taking preliminary objection that the complainant is not the consumer of the PSEB. So the complaint is not maintainable. On merits the opposite party No. 1 and 2 submitted that as per the conditions of the supply the Consumer shall not without previous consent in writing of the board, assign, transfer or part with the benefit of his agreement with the Board, nor shall the Consumer in any manner part with or create any partial or separate interest thereunder. In the event of transfer of property due to the sale the application on A&A form will be made by the transferee alongwith the documents to support the transfer. The consenting letter of the previous owner for the transfer of the security deposited and ACD is to be produced. In case such consenting letter is not produced the applicant shall deposit ACD and the security for the meter. He shall also be liable to pay the outstanding if any against the previous consumer. The alleged sale deed was executed by the opposite party No. 3 vide registered sale deed dated 12.5.1994. In the said sale deed there is no recital for the sale or transfer of the electric connection. The complainant applied for the change of name on 15.4.2005 and deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- vide receipt dated 15.4.2004. Opposite party No. 3 gave an application dated 29.6.2004 that he is the owner of the tubewell connection bearing account No. RR-220/5 BHP. Opposite party No. 3 challenged the affidavit if any as a forged document. He filed another application on 28.6.2004 that his connection may be permanently disconnected as he has no land. He filed another application dated 18.7.2004 to the effect that his connection may be permanently disconnected. Opposite party No. 2 wrote a letter dated 30.7.2004 to opposite party No. 3 to clarify whether affidavit dated 12.5.1994 was given by him to the complainant or not. It was also enquired from the opposite party No. 3 that he should furnish the proof that he is still the owner in possession of the above noted tubewell connection. Opposite party No. 2 informed the opposite party No. 3 vide letter dated 16.7.2004 that his connection cannot be disconnected as he has failed to prove his possession of the above noted connection. Opposite party No. 3 again filed an application dated 19.7.2004 that his connection may not be changed in favour of the complainant. Then opposite party No. 3 filed a civil suit in the Court of Sh. Sat Pal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot in which later on the plaintiff suffered a statement in the Court that he does not want to pursue the case and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. The opposite party No. 3 again issued a legal notice dated 23.2.2007 to the answering opposite parties. In this notice the opposite party No. 3 specifically mentioned that he has no objection if the tubewell connection bearing account No. RR 220 be changed in the name of the complainant, provided his security is refunded to him, the change of name may by effected if the complainant makes a separate bore and constructs a new room on the separate bore and new fittings are made by the complainant. Thus he gave conditional consent that his connection may be changed subject to the above noted conditions. In another letter dated 3.2.2007 the opposite party No. 2 has written that his security already deposited while taking the connection be refunded but the connection may not be released on old bore, old fittings and in the old room in the name of the complainant. But he has given his consent that the connection may be changed in the new Kotha after getting new fitting done alongwith new motor, starter and new bore and after obtaining the new security. The answering opposite parties have no objection in the change of name if the complainant complies with the conditions imposed by the opposite party No. 3. The answering opposite parties are ready and willing to effect the change of name if unconditional consent is given by the original owner of the tubewell connection. So the complainant is not entitled for the compensation of Rs.50,000/- or of any kind. So the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. On receipt of the notice, the opposite party No. 3 appeared in person and filed reply taking preliminary objection that the complainant is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The answering opposite party has been unnecessary dragged into this false litigation. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. On merits it is admitted that the answering opposite party sold to land to said Charanjit Kaur. It is also admitted that the answering opposite party filed a civil suit which was withdrawn. The answering opposite party is legally entitled to get back the security from the opposite party No. 1 and 2 and he is also entitled to retain the possession of the room of the tubewell, tubewell bore and electric motor. However he has no objection for the change of the name to the name of the complainant on her new Kotha, electric motor, tubewell bore and new security etc. There is no question of causing any mental tension or harassment to the complainant. So the complaint be dismissed against the answering opposite party. <br /> 6. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of affidavit of Harinder Singh Ex.C-2, copy of sale deed Ex.C-3, copy of lok Adalat decision dated 10.2.2007 Ex.C-4, copy of statement of Harinder Pal Singh Ex C-5, copy of receipt dated 15.4.2004 Ex.C-6, copy of affidavit of Harinder Pal Singh alias Harinder Singh Ex.C-7, application dated 10.5.2007 Ex.C-8, copy of A&A form Ex.C-9 and closed her evidence. <br /> 7. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 and 2 tendered in their evidence affidavit of Vajinder Kumar Vinayak Assistant Engineer, Sub Division, Golewala Ex.R-5, letter bearing memo No. 19248 dated 1.3.2007 Ex.R-6, letter dated 3.2.2007 Ex.R-7, A&A form Ex.R-8, letter of Harinder Pal Singh dated 29.6.2004 Ex.R-9, letter of Harinder Pal Singh dated 28.6.2004 Ex.R-10, letter of Harinder Pal Singh dated 12.7.2004 Ex.R-11, letter of Harinder Pal Singh dated 27.7.2004 Ex.R-12, letter of Assistant Executive Engineer dated 30.7.2004 Ex.R-13, letter dated 16.7.2004 Ex.R-14, notice Ex.R-15 and closed their evidence. The opposite party No. 3 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.R-1, copy of pass book Ex R-2, copy of sale deed dated 12.5.1994 Ex R-3, application dated 5.4.2004 Ex R-4 and closed his evidence. <br /> 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is entitled for the change of ownership of electric connection which was purchased by her from the opposite party No. 3 alongwith the land in 1994. <br /> 10. Opposite party No. 3 have submitted that electric connection was not sold to the complainant so electric connection cannot be transferred into the name of the complainant.<br /> 11. From the perusal of the sale deed Ex.C-3 it is made out that the opposite party No. 3 have sold 16 Kanals 2 Marlas of land to the complainant on 12.5.1994 alongwith the electric connection. Possession of the land alongwith electric connection was delivered to the complainant.<br /> 12. There is no rebuttal to this fact from the opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 are required to comply with the sale deed mentioned above. <br /> 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint is accepted. Accordingly the opposite party No. 1 and 2 are directed to change electric connection in the name of the complainant, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 28.2.2008<br />