Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that complainant is owner of one shop at Sudar Bazar purchased from Malkiat Singh s/o Udai Singh r/o Navi Abadi, Akalgarh, Sudar Bazar, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana vide vasika no.1970 dated 04.02.1993. At the time of purchase of said shop, a electricity connection bearing account no.U13SB100050L under NRS tariff in the name of previous owner Malkiat Singh was existing which was kept by complainant for its self employment for livelihood for using said connection in said shop. After sometimes said shop was given on rent to Tarsem Singh s/o Hans Raj by the complainant and said tenant was allowed to use the said connection. Thereafter the complainant acknowledge the facts of death of said tenant and his son Sukhminder Singh started running said shop while using said connection also, but he becomes defaulter in paying the rent in time from the last year in 9/2016 then complainant asked him to vacate the shop as same is needed by him for its self use and need for earning its own self employment & livelihood, but said Sukhminder Singh given the treat of lodging FIR & theft penalty case of said connection on the complainant through officials of the opposite parties then considering the matter being serious & avoiding future complication like tempering with meter or kundi case for lodging of FIR & any theft penalty under EA2003 against the complainant, the complainant vide its application dated 3.4.2017 addressed to concerned SDO requested to disconnect the said connection permanently. Said application thereafter marked to Asish Kumar, JE who further directed its staff member Jagraj singh & Harjinder Singh who visited the site of meter box consisting other 20 meters also there and they recorded the particulars of the meter. Thereafter the opposite parties asked the complainant to deposit Rs.1040/- being final reading bill which was stand paid by the complainant vide receipt number on 03.04.2017 in the name of Malkiat Singh & sum of Rs.200/- also got deposited by opposite parties from the complainant on 05.04.2017 and thereafter SDO, PSPCL Sudar issued order of PDCO no.069/84040 dated 05.04.2017 in the name of complainant under said account number and directed the JE Asish Kumar to disconnect the supply permanently and said meter was removed from the site on 05.04.2017 by Jagraj Singh and Harjinder Singh after disconnection of supply on 05.04.2017 in the presence and under signature of the complainant. The complainant also visited the concerned JE on 12.04.2017 on his call for signing consent letter for sending meter to ME Lab. Thereafter complainant acknowledged that said officials again put the meter in the same meter box & reconnected the supply on 13.04.2017 at afternoon on the date of holiday. The complainant at the same time made calls to concerned SDO/JE at their mobile numbers and even sent whatsup messages, but only Xen gave the reply that he have conveyed the message to SDO Jasvir Singh and ask him to act as per PSPCL instruction and he advice to contact SDO Jasvir Singh for submission of necessary documents as per requirement so he can do needful. Thereafter 13.04.2017 to 16.04.2017 being holiday, complainant demanded certain documents/information against said PDCO dt. 05.04.2017 through application dt. 17.04.2017 under RTI Act from the SDO of opposite parties in the capacity of Public Information Officer. RTI application was received under no.256 dated 17.04.2017 by the opposite parties but instead to provide detailed information opposite parties supplied the letter no.497 dt. 09.05.2017 while denying removing of meter in the name of Malkiat Singh. Thereafter the complainant also got changed name of account holder from Malkiat Singh to Parminder Lal in the said account number on 21.06.2017 while completing formalities of opposite parties and deposited Rs.1475/- vide receipt number 49628/183 dt. 21.06.2017. However not supplying detailed information by the opposite parties appeal was preferred by the complainant and copy of information was supplied by the opposite parties only on 13.09.2017 against memo no.3290 on filing appeal under reference of letter no.497 dt. 09.05.2017 of concerned SDO. In the said letter dt 09.05.2017 even opposite parties deliberately and intentionally has not disclosed the account number which was written in the said PDCO dt 05.04.2017. The opposite parties also supplied the copy of PDCO dt 05.04.2017 while adding certain wording above the signature of the complainant which was not existing as on 05.04.2017 at the time of effecting PDCO dt 05.04.2017 in the presence of the complainant as such it is evident that officials of opposite parties tampered with the official record just for gaining them self & under signature of the complainant. Despite of these, complainant made the other request dt 20.09.2017 to the opposite parties to transfer said connection in his other property duly received by opposite parties under dairy no. 840 dt 20.09.2017, but opposite parties have not acted accordingly on the request of the complainant as such opposite parties responsible for rendering deficient/negligent and also responsible for causing mental tension, harassment to the complainant. The officials of the opposite parties are helping the tenant by illegal ways as well as causing the loss to the complainant and future prospective loss to the opposite parties despite of such knowledge that complainant is owner of the shop and it is responsibility and duty of the complainant also to keep the meter away from any kind of loss/theft against the said connection. As such there is clear violation of rules/regulation/EA2003 by the concerned SDO, JE & staff officials of the opposite parties while misusing their powers hence opposite parties rendered deficient/negligent services. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite parties may be penalized for Rs.75,000/- and they further may be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.
b) And opposite parties also be directed to transfer the said connection to other place of complainant for enabling him to earn his self employment and livelihood without further delay.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that this complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties as after going through the pleadings of the present complaint it is revealed that there is main dispute between the complainant and his tenant namely Sukhwinder Singh and said Sukhwinder Singh is using the said electric connection in dispute, but the complainant has failed to implead the said Sukhwinder Singh in the present complaint. As such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise the present complaint cannot be decided in summery trial as complicated and intricate questions are involved in the present case which cannot be decided in summary trial and as such said meter is required to be decided by the civil courts of competent of jurisdiction. Even otherwise this complaint is not maintainable and merits dismissal. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In this case the complainant had applied for disconnection the electric connection bearing account No.SB10/0050L on the basis of ownership of the premises where the said electric connection is installed. Accordingly the opposite parties issued the PDCO vide PDCO no.69/84040 and the same was handed over to Ashish Kumar JE to effect the same. On 13.04.2017 when Ashish Kumar JE visited the premises where the said electric meter is installed then he found that the electric connection is installed in the name of Malkiat Singh and same is being used by his tenant namely Sukhwinder Singh son of Tarsem Singh and is doing watch repair work in the shop premises. The tenant Sukhwinder Singh did not allow the said JE to remove the meter. On 19.04.2017 the SDO issued a letter to the SHO P.S. Sudhar, Ludhiana to take the action against Parminder Lal who quarrelled the JE Ashish Kumar and misbehavd with the aforesaid JE and also abused him very badly. The said letter duly received by P.s. Sudhar on 21.04.2017, but no action has been taken by the said policy against the complainant. Even on 9.5.2017 the opposite party no.2 served a memo no.497 dated 9.5.2017 to Parminder Lal that Parminder Lal wrongly got the PDCO issued in his name, whereas the electric connection is lying installed in the name of Malkiat Singh and also informed the aforesaid Parminder Lal that they never issued any PDCO in the name of Malkiat Singh nor the meter has been removed from the premises. Even the opposite parties also provided information to Parminder Lal under RTI vide memo no.3290 dated 13.09.2017. It is further submitted that Parminder Lal written a letter on 19.09.2017 to the opposite party no.3 regarding transfer of the said electric connection to his another property. But on 29.09.2017, tenant Sukhwinder Singh moved an application to the opposite party no.3 and in the said application he stated that he has filed a case against Parminder Lal for Permanent Injunction at Jagraon and in the said case a stay order has been granted by the Hon’ble Court in favour of Sukhwinder Singh and he supplied the said stay order with his application to the opposite party no.3. On the application of the aforesaid Parminder Lal for shifting the electric connection to one place to another place, the JE Ashish Kumar reported that the said connection is installed in the tenancy premises under the name and style of M/s deluxe watch and Radio and tenant has dispute with the landlord and even court case is pending between us. Till then said suit is not decided, the meter in dispute cannot be shifted to one place to another place and this fact has already been informed by the opposite party no.3 to the complainant vide memo no.1174 dated 3.11.2017. It is further submitted that on the request of the complainant the electric connection in question has been changed in the name of complainant from the name of Malkiat Singh as per the change of name order no.98/45096 dated 22.06.2017. Since there is a dispute between the complainant and his tenant Sukhwinder Singh as such the electric connection in question cannot be shifted to one place to another place as said Sukhwinder Singh has already obtained the stay order from the court at Jagraon against Parminder Lal and this fact has already informed by Sukhwinder Singh to the opposite parties in writing alongwith the copy of the say order as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the electric connection bearing account SB10/0050 was earlier installed in the name of Malkiat Singh and now the said connection has been transferred in the name of complainant. It is submitted that on 3.4.2017 the complainant applied for disconnection of the electric connection in question with the opposite parties and upon the said application, the opposite parties issued the PDCO and Ashish Kumar JE was appointed to affect the same, but on 13.4.2017 when the said JE visited the premises where the electric connection in question is installed then on reaching he found and reported that the said connection is being used by the tenant Sukhwinder Singh and the said connection is in the name of Malkiat Singh. The tenant Sukhwinder Singh also refused to remove the meter from the site. Accordingly the opposite parties informed the said fact to the complainant. It is further submitted that on the application of the complainant, the opposite parties issued the PDCO in the name of complainant inadvertently, where the electric connection in question was lying installed in the name of Malkiat Singh previous owner. It is further submitted that the opposite parties never disconnected the electric connection in question from the site as on reaching the premises in question, the concerned. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Dharampal, Senior Executive Engineer, Adda Dakha Division, PSPCL, Ludhiana as Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R13 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on record.
7. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that complainant is owner of one shop at Sudar Bazar purchased from Malkiat Singh s/o Udai Singh r/o Navi Abadi, Akalgarh, Sudar Bazar, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana vide vasika no.1970 dated 04.02.1993. At the time of purchase of said shop, an electricity connection bearing account no.U13SB100050L under NRS tariff in the name of previous owner Malkiat Singh was existing. After sometimes said shop was given on rent to Tarsem Singh s/o Hans Raj by the complainant and said tenant was allowed to use the said connection. After the death of said tenant his son Sukhminder Singh started running said shop while using said connection, but he becomes defaulter in paying the rent in time from the last year in 9/2016 then complainant asked him to vacate the shop as same is needed by him for its self use and need for earning its own self employment, but said Sukhminder Singh refused to vacate the shop. Thereafter the complainant vide its application dated 3.4.2017 addressed to concerned SDO requested to disconnect the said connection permanently. Said application thereafter marked to Asish Kumar, JE who further directed its staff member Jagraj singh & Harjinder Singh who visited the site of meter box consisting other 20 meters also there and they recorded the particulars of the meter. Thereafter the opposite parties asked the complainant to deposit Rs.1040/- being final reading bill which was sand paid by the complainant vide receipt number on 03.04.2017 in the name of Malkiat Singh & sum of Rs.200/- also got deposited by opposite parties from the complainant on 05.04.2017 and thereafter SDO, PSPCL Sudar issued order of PDCO no.069/84040 dated 05.04.2017 in the name of complainant under said account number and directed the the JE Asish Kumar to disconnect the supply permanently and said meter was removed from the site on 05.04.2017 by Jagraj Singh and Harjinder Singh in the presence and under signature of the complainant. The complainant also visited the concerned JE on 12.04.2017 on his call for signing consent letter for sending meter to ME Lab. Thereafter complainant acknowledged that said officials again put the meter in the same meter box & reconnected the supply on 13.04.2017. The complainant at the same time contacted to Xen, who gave the reply that he have conveyed the message to SDO Jasvir Singh and ask him to act as per PSPCL instruction and he advice to contact SDO Jasvir Singh for submission of necessary documents as per requirement so he can do needful. Thereafter 13.04.2017 to 16.04.2017 being holiday, complainant demanded certain documents/information against said PDCO dt. 05.04.2017 through application dt. 17.04.2017 under RTI Act from the SDO of opposite parties in the capacity of Public Information Officer. RTI application was received under no.256 dated 17.04.2017 by the opposite parties but instead to provide detailed information opposite parties supplied the letter no.497 dt. 09.05.2017 while denying removing of meter in the name of Malkiat Singh. Thereafter the complainant also got changed name of account holder from Malkiat Singh to Parminder Lal in the said account number on 21.06.2017 while completing formalities of opposite parties and deposited Rs.1475/- vide receipt number 49628/183 dt. 21.06.2017. However not supplying detailed information by the opposite parties appeal was preferred by the complainant and copy of information was supplied by the opposite parties only on 13.09.2017 against memo no.3290 on filing appeal under reference of letter no.497 dt. 09.05.2017 of concerned SDO. In the said letter dt 09.05.2017 even opposite parties deliberately and intentionally has not disclosed the account number which was written in the said PDCO dt 05.04.2017. The opposite parties also supplied the copy of PDCO dt 05.04.2017 while adding certain wording above the signature of the complainant which was not existing as on 05.04.2017 at the time of effecting PDCO dt 05.04.2017 in the presence of the complainant as such it is evident that officials of opposite parties tampered with the official record just for gaining them self & under signature of the complainant. Despite of these, complainant made the other request dt 20.09.2017 to the opposite parties to transfer said connection in his other property duly received by opposite parties under dairy no. 840 dt 20.09.2017, but till date opposite parties have not acted accordingly on the request of the complainant as such opposite parties responsible for rendering deficient/negligent and also responsible for causing mental tension, harassment to the complainant. The officials of the opposite parties are helping the tenant by illegal ways as well as causing the loss to the complainant and future prospective loss to the opposite parties despite of such knowledge that complainant is owner of the shop and it is responsibility and duty of the complainant also to keep the meter away from any kind of loss/theft against the said connection. As such there is clear violation of rules/regulation/EA2003 by the concerned SDO, JE & staff officials of the opposite parties while misusing their powers hence opposite parties rendered deficient/negligent services.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the Complainant on the ground that the complainant had applied for disconnection the electric connection bearing account No.SB10/0050L on the basis of ownership of the premises where the said electric connection is installed. Accordingly the opposite parties issued the PDCO vide PDCO no.69/84040 and the same was handed over to Ashish Kumar JE visited the premises where the said electric meter is installed then he found that the electric connection is installed in the name of Malkiat Singh and same is being used by his tenant namely Sukhwinder Singh son of Tarsem Singh and is doing watch repair work in the shop premises. The tenant Sukhwinder Singh did not allow the said JE to remove the meter. On 19.04.2017 the SDO issued a letter to the SHO P.S. Sudhar, Ludhiana to take the action against Parminder Lal who quarreled the JE Ashish Kumar and misbehaved with the aforesaid JE and also abused him very badly. The said letter duly received by P.S. Sudhar on 21.04.2017, but no action was taken by the said policy against the complainant. Even on 9.5.2017 the opposite party no.2 served a memo no.497 dated 9.5.2017 to Parminder Lal that Parminder Lal wrongly got the PDCO issued in his name, whereas the electric connection is lying installed in the name of Malkiat Singh and also informed the aforesaid Parminder Lal that they never issued any PDCO in the name of Malkiat Singh nor the meter has been removed from the premises. Even the opposite parties also provided information to Parminder Lal under RTI vide memo no.3290 dated 13.09.2017. It is further submitted that Parminder Lal written a letter on 19.09.2017 to the opposite party no.3 regarding transfer of the said electric connection to his another property. But on 29.09.2017, tenant Sukhwinder Singh moved an application to the opposite party no.3 and in the said application he stated that he has filed a case against Parminder Lal for Permanent Injunction at Jagraon and in the said case a stay order has been granted by the Hon’ble Court in favour of Sukhwinder Singh and he supplied the said stay order with his application to the opposite party no.3. On the application of the aforesaid Parminder Lal for shifting the electric connection to one place to another place, the JE Ashish Kumar report that the said connection is installed in the tenancy premises under the name and style of M/s deluxe watch and Radio and tenant has dispute with the landlord and even court case is pending between us. Till then said suit is not decided, the meter in dispute cannot be shifted to one place to another place and this fact has already been informed by the opposite party no.3 to the complainant vide memo no.1174 dated 3.11.2017. It is further submitted that on the request of the complainant the electric connection in question has been changed in the name of complainant from the name of Malkiat Singh as per the change of name order no.98/45096 dated 22.06.2017. Since there is a dispute between the complainant and his tenant Sukhwinder Singh as such the electric connection in question cannot be shifted to one place to another place as said Sukhwinder Singh has already obtained the stay order from the court at Jagraon against Parminder Lal and this fact has already informed by Sukhwinder Singh to the opposite parties in writing alongwith the copy of the say order as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
9. The plea of the complainant is that he applied for the disconnection of the electric connection installed on his shop at Sudhar Bazar, which was purchased by him from Malkiat Singh s/o Udai Singh, because the tenant Sukhminder Singh who running said shop becomes defaulter in paying electricity bills. On request of the complainant, the said electric connection was disconnected and meter was removed from the site. Thereafter the complainant came to know that the said electricity connection was reinstalled by the opposite parties. On the other hand, opposite parties argued that it is admitted that complainant applied for disconnection of the electric connection being account no.SB10/0050L on the basis of ownership of the premises where the said electric connection is installed. Accordingly the opposite parties issued the PDCO no.69/84040 and the same was handed over to Ashish Kumar JE, who visited the premises and found that the electric connection is installed in the name of Malkiat Singh and same is being used by his tenant namely Sukhwinder Singh son of Tarsem Singh and is doing watch repair work in the shop premises. The tenant Sukhwinder Singh did not allow the said JE to remove the meter. On 9.5.2017 the opposite parties served a memo no.497 dated 9.5.2017 to Parminder Lal that he wrongly got the PDCO issued in his name, whereas the electric connection is lying installed in the name of Malkiat Singh. Thereafter Parminder Lal written a letter on 19.09.2017 to the opposite parties regarding transfer of the said electric connection to his another property. But on 29.09.2017, tenant Sukhwinder Singh moved an application to the opposite parties and stated that he has filed a case against Parminder Lal for Permanent Injunction at Civil Court, Jagraon and in the said case a stay order has been granted by the Hon’ble Court in favour of Sukhwinder Singh and he supplied the said stay order with his application to the opposite parties. On the application of the aforesaid Parminder Lal for shifting the electric connection to one place to another place, the JE Ashish Kumar report that the said connection is installed in the tenancy premises under the name and style of M/s deluxe watch and Radio and tenant has dispute with the landlord and even court case is pending between them. Till then said suit is not decided, the meter in dispute cannot be shifted to one place to another place and this fact has already been informed by the opposite parties to the complainant vide memo no.1174 dated 3.11.2017, which is Ex.R-13. However on the request of the complainant the electric connection in question was changed in the name of complainant from the name of Malkiat Singh as per the change of name order no.98/45096 dated 22.06.2017. Since there is a dispute between the complainant and his tenant Sukhwinder Singh and moreover the said Sukhwinder Singh has already obtained the stay order from the court at Jagraon regarding the electric connection in dispute, copy of which is Ex.R-10. Furthermore the said Sukhwinder Singh is not a party in the present complaint. So, this Commission has nothing to do with the present complaint.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no force in the present complaint and the same stands dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Dated: 29.04.2022.
