BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.212 of 2015

Date of Instt. 18.5.2015

Date of Decision : 23.12.2015

Amrik Singh son of Ujagar Singh R/o Village Pholriwal, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

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

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Cantt Sub-Division No.II, Village Birring, Jalandhar Cantt through its AEE.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh.Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Sandeep Singh Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Balwinder Singh Adv., counsel for OPs.

Order

Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)

1. Complainant Amrik Singh have filed the present complaint against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited etc opposite parties (OPs) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and for directing the OP to shift the tube-well connection in dispute as requested by the complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental tension and Rs.22,000/- as counsel fee and Rs.7500/- as legal expenses.

2. The case of the complainant is that he is resident of village Pholriwal, Jalandhar and have a tube-well connection No.AP-21/W-1688 which is in his exclusive name and he is enjoying the said tube-well connection without any interruption and is lawful consumer of the same for all intent and purposes; that complainant wanted to shift the tube-well connection in dispute from the present place to his other place in village Pholriwal, Tehsil & District Jalandhar and for this purpose, filed an application with the OPs and also deposited Rs.5000/- as shifting charges vide receipt No.277 dated 22.8.2013; that the OP assured the complainant that tube-well connection in dispute would be shifted but with no effect and OP did not shift the tube-well connection in dispute; that complainant met the concerned official of the OP repeatedly but OP kept on delaying the matter on the one or other pretext; that the act and conduct of the OP is arbitrary and negligent as it is for the complainant to decide as to where tube-well connection in dispute would be more beneficial to the complainant but OPs have not shifted the tube-well connection in dispute as per request of the complainant which amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and this conduct of the OP also caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant, hence he filed the present complaint.

3. After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs and OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that complainant have suppressed the material facts and is also estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint and no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the OP; that complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It was asserted that actually tube-well connection in dispute was installed in the name of the complainant and earlier a litigation regarding the tube-well connection in dispute was pending in the court of Smt.Harreet Kaur, PCS, Ld.Additional Civil Judge, Senior Divsion, Jalandhar, titled as Gurchain Singh Gill Vs. PSPCL and others which was dismissed in default vide order dated 3.1.2013 and thereafter complainant filed application for shifting of tube-well connection in dispute to some other place and also deposited fee of Rs.5000/- vide receipt No.277 dated 22.8.2013 but Gurchain Singh Gill, brother of the complainant, filed an application dated 12.11.2013 before SDO of PSPCL, Jalandhar Cantt raising objection against the proposed shifting as requested by Amrik Singh complainant and Gurchain Singh Gill also served a legal notice dated 9.11.2013 alongwith partition/settlement deed to PSPCL through his counsel against the shifting of tube-well connection in dispute. It was asserted that the land where tube-well connection in dispute is installed, is a joint agricultural land of complainant and his brother Gurchain Singh Gill and others and partition of the said land has not been effected till date and as per information provided by Gurchain Singh Gill, he is in possession where electric tube-well connection in dispute is installed and as such the OP can not proceed further with the shifting of electric tube-well connection in dispute and same was informed to the complainant vide memo No.4 dated 17.1.2014. On merits it was admitted that electric tube-well connection in dispute is installed in the name of the complainant Amrik Singh. It was also admitted that complainant filed application for shifting of said electric tube-well connection in dispute alongwith shifting fee of Rs.5000/-. It was denied if there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. All other allegations contained in the complaint, were also denied with prayer to dismiss the complaint with cost.

4. Parties were granted sufficient opportunities to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case.

5. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW/A alongwith documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed evidence.

7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that complainant is exclusive owner of the electric tube-well connection in dispute as is evident from passbook Ex.C1 and he is using that connection without any interference from anybody. He contended that complainant wanted to shift the electric tube-well connection to his other land as per his convenience and filed an application for shifting of connection and also deposited fee required for the purpose as is evident from receipt Ex.C2. He contended that OP assured the complainant to shift the connection after some official formality but inspite of many request and visit, the OP have not shifted the electric tube-well connection so far due to which reason, he filed the present complaint in which OP filed written statement contending that brother of the complainant have objected the shifting of the connection. He contended that previously brother of the complainant filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the OP from disconnecting, transferring or shifting the electric tube-well connection in dispute, copy of which is Ex.C4 in which complainant filed reply contesting the same and brother of the complainant took many opportunities for leading evidence but failed to produce any evidence and thereafter brother of the complainant left the civil suit in midway and consequently the said civil suit was dismissed in default vide order dated 3.1.2013 Ex.C6 and it shows that the civil suit filed by the brother of the complainant as well as objections filed by brother of the complainant before OP are frivolous and without any substance but inspite of that the OP have not shifted the connection and it caused harassment and inconvenience to the complainant and also shows deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such complaint is required to be allowed and OP is required to be directed to shift the electric tube-well connection as per application and also to burden OP with compensation and litigation expenses.

9. Learned counsel for the OP contended that Gurchain Singh is brother of the complainant who is also share holder in the land with the complainant. He contended that though complainant is owner of the electric tube-well connection in dispute and have filed application for shifting the tube-well connection to some other place but Gurchain Singh filed an application Ex.RW2 objecting the shifting of the connection as he was contending that the land where tube-well connection is installed has come to his share and due to this reason, electric tube-well connection be not shifted. He contended that Gurchain Singh brother of the complainant also filed a photocopy of partition deed showing that electric tube-well connection has come to his share and due to this reason, the OP has rightly rejected the shifting of the electric tube-well connection vide letter Ex.RW4. He contended that even the electricity rules as envisaged in 3.3 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual (Edition 31.3.2011) provides that in such type of cases, electric tube-well connection should not be shifted or released and as such the OP has rightly refused to shift the electric tube-well connection and complaint is false and is liable to be dismissed.

10. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant is exclusive owner of the electric tube-well connection in dispute as is evident from passbook Ex.C1 issued by the OP. It is also admitted case of the parties that complainant have filed application for shifting of electric tube-well connection and have also deposited Rs.5000/- as shifting fee vide receipt Ex.C2. He has also filed application Ex.C1 for shifting connection in dispute. The contention of the OP is that Gurchain Singh brother of the complainant have filed application Ex.RW2 and due to this reason electric tube-well connection in dispute was not shifted and letter Ex.RW4 was written to the complainant. It is also contention of the OP that shifting was rejected in view of regulation 3.3 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual. However this Forum does not find force in the contention of learned counsel for the OP. It is mentioned in the application Ex.RW2 that Gurchain Singh is an NRI and is residing in U.K though he has come to India for some time. Gurchain Singh also admitted in application Ex.RW2 that Amrik Singh is in possession of the land as he himself has given his house and ancestral land to Amrik Singh for its maintenance. The case of the complainant is that he is owner in possession of the land where electric tube-well connection is installed and is also owner in possession of the land where electric tube-well connection is to be shifted. Gurchain Singh also filed a photocopy of alleged partition deed in which he also admit that possession is with Amrik Singh though Amrik Singh have promised to hand over the possession of the land after harvesting crop from it but the fact remains that Amrik Singh is in possession of the land where electric tube-well connection is installed and no document has been filed on the file that Gurchain Singh is in possession of the land where electric tube-well connection is to be shifted though the contention of the complainant is that he is also in possession of the land where electric tube-well connection is to be shifted. The OP have relied on rule 3.3 (i) (c) for raising objection against shifting of electric tube-well connection. The Regulation 3.3(i) (c) reads as under:-

Regulation 3.3(i)(c):-

“For release of tube well connection under General or Priority categories minimum land holding of one acre shall be pre-requisite. In case the applicant is having joint ownership/Mushtarka Khata land in his possession as per revenue record where the connection is to be released or shifted, he should be allowed to do so on furnishing of indemnity bond. However, if the applicant having join ownership is not in possession of land where connection is to be released, NOC of other members of the family/relatives shall be necessary for release/shifting of the connection. Minimum land holding condition in case of High Technology category consumers shall be 500 Sq.metre. Also release of tube-well connections on priority shall be allowed to be prospective consumers in the State on Drip/Micro Sprinkler Irrigation System installed on a minimum area of 2 (two) hectares for fruit crops and 1 (one) hectare for Vegetables and non horticulture crops.”

11. The bare reading of regulation 3.3(i)(c) shows that if the applicant is in exclusive possession of the land though joint he can apply for installation of electric tube-well connection or even shift of connection in the said land and there is ample evidence on the file even as per application of the objector Gurchain Singh, the complainant is also in possession of the land where electric tube-well connection is installed and as discussed earlier there is no evidence on the file to show that Amrik Singh is not in possession of the land where electric tube-well connection is to be shifted. As such Amrik Singh have proved on the file that he is entitled for the shifting of the electric tube-well connection. OP have denied shifting of the electric tube-well connection only on the objection of Gurchain Singh which does not have any substance in it and objection is only for the sake of objection for not shifting the electric tube-well connection. It amount to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Otherwise also, same rules applies for installation of electric tube-well connection but the OP have installed the electric tube-well connection in the said land which shows that OP admit the complainant in exclusive possession of the land where electric tube-well connection is installed. Otherwise also Gurchain Singh brother of the complainant filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining electricity department from shifting etc electric tube-well connection in dispute at the instance of Amrik Singh complainant. Amrik Singh complainant filed written statement Ex.C5 contesting the same and thereafter Gurchain Singh absented in the civil suit and consequently the civil suit was dismissed in default. It also shows that Gurchain Singh was having no substance nor any evidence to prove his contention and when Gurchain Singh failed in civil suit, the OP has come to his rescue because the relief which was denied by the Civil Court was indirectly granted by the OP to Gurchain Singh. The act and conduct of the OP must have caused inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to the complainant and complainant is also entitled for compensation etc from the OP alongwith main relief.

12. In the light of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with costs in favour of the complainant and against the OPs and OPs are directed to shift the electric tube-well connection in dispute as per application of the complainant and complainant is also entitled to recover the compensation of Rs.3000/- from the OP for inconvenience and mental agony and Rs.1000/- as cost of proceedings. OP is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Ashwani Kumar Mehta

23.12.2015 Member Member President