Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/380

Usha Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Tandon Adv.

22 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

 

Consumer Complaint No. 380 of 16.05.2016

Date of Decision            :   22.02.2017

 

Usha Rani aged about 57 years daughter of Sh.Sadhu Ram and wife of Sh.Inderjit Singh, resident of village Ladhowal, near Railway Station, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman.

2.Haibowal, Sub Division(Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana through its Executive Engineer.

3.Vipin Sood Junior Engineer Haibowal Sub Division (Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana.

 

…Opposite parties

 

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :        Sh.Amit Tandon, Advocate

For OPs                          :        Sh.G.S.Pahwa, Advocate 

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant claims herself to be the owner in possession to the extent of 1/3^rd share out of property measuring 0 Kanal 10 Marlas, comprised in Khata No.173/162, Khatoni No.177, Khasra No.198/2 as detailed in the jamabandi for the year 2007-08 situate in village Ladhowal, Tehsil Ludhiana West, District Ludhiana. Complainant applied for installation of new electric connection in her name in the said property because of her being in possession of the same. Application dated 11.4.2016 was filed for that purpose and demand note No.668214 was issued. Even the complainant deposited the security amount of Rs.1390/- vide receipt dated 11.4.2016. At the time of deposit of the said security amount, it was disclosed to the complainant that electric connection will be installed within 15 days from the date of deposit of security amount. Even after lapse of 15 days, the electricity connection has not been installed, due to which, complainant facing tremendous difficulty in hot days. OP3 has been ordered by Op2 to install the electricity connection, but despite that OP3 is not installing the same as he is demanding gratification for such installation. When the complainant approached OP2, then it kept on putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to release/install the electricity connection applied for through application dated 11.4.2016. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.20,000/- even sought.

2.                In joint written statement filed by OP1 to OP3, it is claimed that the complaint is not maintainable because there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. It is admitted that the complainant is owner in possession to the extent of 1/3^rd share of the property mentioned in the complaint. Rather, it is claimed that the complainant herself at fault because she submitted false information regarding her ownership qua the premises, in which, electricity connection to be installed. This false information provided, despite undertaking to the effect that in case, information found false, then electricity connection may not  be  released. In process of the application of the complainant, the job order was issued for installation of the connection and report of JE concerned was called. As per that report, property in question is disputed property and the complainant has lost the civil litigation titled as Usha Rani versus Mohan Lal bearing case No.348 of 2014. That case was decided on 20.2.2016 by the court of Ms.Mehak Sabharwal, Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana. Brother of the complainant Mr.Mohan Lal gave the copy of said judgment. Thereafter, the complainant was served with notice memo No.210 dated 30.4.2016 for calling upon her to supply the title papers in respect of the property, but complainant failed to submit the title papers and that is why, her application could not be processed further. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 and Ex.C2 and thereafter, she along with her counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Er.Himat Singh Dhillon, Senior Executive Engineer along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and then closed evidence.

5.                Written arguments have not been submitted by any of the parties, but only oral arguments were addressed and heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                Demand note is produced on record for establishing that amount of Rs.1390/- was deposited on 11.4.2016. Even if this amount may have been deposited, despite that release of the electricity connection in question in favour of complainant is possible only in case, information supplied by her through application form Ex.R3 was found correct. Clause 15 of application form Ex.R15 specifically provides that as per declaration of the complainant on oath, she is lawful owner of the premises or her co-owner agrees for taking electricity supply   in the premises in question or their consent obtained in installation of such electricity connection. However, in case the consent from the co-owner not possible, then complainant to keep on indemnifying the PSPCL against the harms    or claims due to PSPCL. That indemnification clause applicable in case, complainant found to be lawful occupier of the premises. However, copy of judgment Ex.R4 establishes that Court of Ms.Mehak Sabharwal, Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana has found in para no.7 of this judgment that complainant not able to prove her possession by any convincing evidence. Further, in this judgment itself it has been held that the complainant is not exclusive owner in possession of the suit property, but at the most, she being daughter of Sadhu Ram, is a co-sharer there in. The capacity in which, the possession held by the complainant not proved as per that judgment and that is why possession of the complainant was not inferred. It is admitted during course of arguments by counsel for complainant that appeal preferred against judgment Ex.R4 even has been dismissed by the appellate Court. If that be position, then findings of the Civil Court as recorded against the complainant are binding qua her being not in possession of the suit property. So, declaration submitted through Ex.R3 is incorrect that the complainant is lawful occupier of the premises in question. The consent of the other co-owners not alleged to be got by the complainant and as such, virtually installation of the electricity connection in question sought by the complainant, despite the fact that she is not occupier of the premises in question. At page No.3 of Ex.R3 itself, it is mentioned that in case, information submitted by the complainant found to be false at any stage, then Ops may not release the electricity connection in question and if released, then the same may be disconnected without prior notice. On doing so all charges deposited by the complainant to stand forfeited. As the information supplied by the complainant of being occupier found false and that is why J.E put the note on the “Job Order for Device installation” Ex.R2 qua the existence of family dispute.

7.                Complainant was called upon through notice Ex.R1 dated 30.4.2016 to produce the proof of her ownership qua the property, in which, the electricity connection in question was to be installed because her brother namely Mohan Lal produced copy of judgment of Civil Court showing as if the complainant has lost the case. That proof was required to be submitted by the complainant after visiting the office during office hours. Further, through this notice Ex.R1, complainant was informed that in case, she failed to submit the proof, then the file pertaining to the release of the electricity connection in question will be consigned without further action. Complainant instead of responding to this notice Ex.R1, has filed this complaint on 16.5.2016 and as such, virtually this complaint has been filed for circumventing the findings recorded by the Civil Court or the due legal action sought to be taken by the Ops in view of furnishing of false declaration qua the occupation of the complainant. Certainly Ops have right to issue notice and demand proof of ownership/possession of the complainant qua the premises, in which, the electricity connection in question to be installed. That has been done appropriately by the Ops and the complainant herself is at fault in not responding to the issued notice for satisfying Ops qua genuineness of the claim of the complainant. No one can get benefit of her own wrong. Legally the electricity connection in question even cannot be issued unless proof of occupation produced and as such, if Ops have not released the electricity connection in question, despite deposit of the requisite fee by the complainant, then no illegality committed by Ops. Non release of the electricity connection in question for the fault of the complainant cannot be termed as a deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

8.                As per law laid down in case B.L. Joshi Vs Bank of India and others decided on 01.04.2013 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi through Consumer Complaint case No.171 to 174 of 2010, if Civil Court has already decided the same matter, then principle of resjudicata will come in operation in the matter of filing the complaint before the Consumer Forum. In view of the findings recorded through Ex.R4, complainant estopped by principle of resjudicata from claiming that she is occupier of the premises   in question. Ratio of case Asim Das vs. Ram Niranjan Dhanuka and others-2012(1)CaILJ-256(Calcutta High Court) is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the reported case, it was found that lawful occupier of  portion of any premises is entitled to release of electricity connection.      Complainant of this case is not established to be lawful occupier through judgment of Civil Court and as such, facts of the reported case are quite distinct than those of the present case before us. Finding no deficiency in service on the part of Ops, complaint held to be not maintainable.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                           President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:22.02.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.