Complainant Rakesh Kumar through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to install the new domestic electric connection in his name. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him due to deficient service and unfair trade practice alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that a domestic electric connection bearing A/c No.300016/986 was installed in his father’s name namely Sh.Karni Kumar, who had expired. Sh.Karni Kumar has also contracted 2nd marriage and his second wife namely Kailasho Devi is also residing in the house in dispute. He is real son of Karni Kumar from his first marriage. The house was joint and the Kaliasho Devi being step mother was given separate portion in the house and the matter was also compromised in the presence of respectable and relatives on 17.4.2011. Smt.Kailasho Devi was also not paying electricity bills of this connection as per her share. At present he is residing in separate portion in the house and approached the opposite party to get separate domestic electricity connection in his name to be installed in the portion under his possession in the house. He submitted application alongwith documents on 20.10.2014. The accountant of the opposite party no.1 refused to accept his application without authentication of J.E. and marked the application to J.E.Raj Kumar. Accordingly Mr.Raj Kumar JE visited his house on 17.11.2014 to verify the contents of the application on the same day and the said J.E. directed him to pay all outstanding bills against his existing meter. He deposited the entire outstanding bill amount of the previous electricity connection. He has next pleaded that previously he had also paid entire outstanding bill of this connection. His application authenticated by JE Raj Kumar and he deposited security amounting to Rs.1900/- for getting new electricity connection on 20.11.2014, but no action was taken by the opposite parties for installment of new electricity connection. He has also served legal notice to the opposite party on 20.3.2015. The opposite party no.1 also given reply vide letter/memo No.479 dated 13.4.2015. The opposite party no.1 in reply to the legal notice dated 20.3.2015 has falsely submitted that concerned officials visited the house on 18.12.2014 and 30.12.2014 but Smt.Kailasho Devi his step mother raised dispute and did not allow the officials of the opposite parties to install electricity connection. Infect no dispute regarding the joint holding of the house is pending. He remained present but no official of the opposite party visited the house for installation of new electricity connection/meter in the house. He again visited the office of the opposite party no.1 but they again informed him to clear further dues of the previous electricity connection which become due after the clearance of earlier dues by him. He several times approached the opposite parties and requested to install new connection, but the opposite parties did not pay heed. He also served another notice dated 5.5.2015 but no reply was given by the opposite parties. The opposite parties are intentionally and illegally harassing him and have not installed electricity connection/meter after clearance of all the dues of previous meter which was due at the time of filing application for getting new electricity connection. He has suffered mentally and physically. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties 1 to 3 who appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint; the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hand and concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately; the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as Kailasho Devi is the necessary part to the complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the account no.300016/986 is sanctioned in the name of Karni Ram. As per the rules and regulations of the opposite parties, no second electric connection can be released in one premise without the consent of the other co-sharers/persons, who are residing in that premises. In the present case, the applicant applied for the electric connection alongwith affidavit dated 3.11.2014 and deposed that the premises where he wants to got electric connection, is not in any dispute with anyone, but when the concerned J.E. visited the spot where the complainant want to get the electric connection in dispute, one Kailasho Devi raised the objection that there is a dispute between Kaiasho Devi and the complainant regarding the premises in question. Kailasho also served a legal notice dated 28.4.2015 to the opposite parties in this regard. The complainant also served the legal notice to the opposite parties for the installation of the electric connection in dispute. The opposite parties have given the detailed reply of the legal notice of the complainant vide Memo No.779 dated 13.4.2015. It was further submitted that if the complainant want to get the electricity connection in the premises where the already one electric meter has been installed, in that event it is necessary that the complainant has to fie the No Objection Certificate of the other co-sharer/persons who are living in the premises and fulfill the other requirements which are necessary for installing second electric meter in the premises, where already one electric meter is installed. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
- Opposite party no.4 appeared and filed an application for impleading her as a necessary party which was allowed vide order dated 19.1.2016 and she filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has got no cause of action or any locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite parties; the complainant has filed the present false and frivolous complaint with sole motive to cause unnecessary harassment to the opposite party and the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately. On merits, it was admitted that domestic electric connection bearing A/c No.300016/986 was installed in the house by Sh.Karni Kumar, father of the complainant who had expired. Sh.Karni Kumar has also contracted 2nd marriage with the answering opposite party and she is also residing in the house in dispute. It was further admitted that the complainant Rakesh Kumar is real son of Karni Kumar from his first marriage and he is also residing in the house. The house is still joint and the same has not been partitioned. No compromise was ever affected on 17.4.2011. The complainant has set up a false story. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1 along with other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18 and closed the evidence.
- Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Harmanpreet Singh Cheema S.D.O. Ex.OP-1,2,3/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1 to 3/2 to Ex.OP-1 to 3/6 and closed the evidence.
- Smt.Kailasho Devi opposite party no.4 tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.OP-4/1 and closed the evidence.
8. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant Rakesh Kumar has been jointly living in the family’s ancestral common-house with his OP4 (step-mother) Kailash Devi and her children and who all (till present) have been collectively utilizing the common benefits of the DS Electric Connection # 300016/986 continuing in the name of the complainant’s (since demised) father Kiran Kumar. However, the complainant applied for one separate Electric Connection for his (legally undefined but occupied) share-portion in the un-partitioned house. The opposite party corporation (service providers) accepted the security-deposit for the proposed Connection but did not release it facing opposition/objections from the complainant’s Step-mother who joined the proceedings as defendant OP4. The OP Corporation has also stated that its Rules & Regulations do not allow/permit a Second (fresh/ new) Electricity connection in the same building/premises without the free consent (had in writing, first) as NOC from all other co-residents coupled other pre-requisites. Here, the other co-resident(s) of the complainant (his Step-mother OP4, here) has not only opposed but has also raised serious objections to the proposed new connection in the common un-partitioned jointly owned residential house. The house portions under the present possession/ occupation of the two litigating parties (complainant and the OP4) does not have any legal sanctity but has simply been a settlement reached out through the efforts of the locality-respectable.
9. Thus, under the circumstances, we find the opposite party service providers to be justified in its refusal to the complainant’s fresh electricity connection. The OP’s pre-condition of legally separate and defined lodging portions in the same premises as a pre-requisite for the second (fresh/ new) electricity connection is apparently legal quite customer-friendly and logical at the same time.
10. Lastly, we are of the considered opinion that the prime situation as presently faced out by the co-owner litigants is the partition of the Residential House and not of the basic amenities and they shall always be at liberty to get the same resolved as per the available law and legal advice.
11. In the light of the all above, we do not find any statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
May 23, 2016 Member.
*MK*
