- Complainant Joginder Singh has filed the present complaint
U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter, for short called the Act) seeking directions to the titled opposite parties (for short, 'the O.P.') namely Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub. Divsion Dehriwal Daroga Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, through its S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Through its S.E. Gurdaspur and Punjab State Power Corporation through its XEN Dhariwal, to transfer the connection No.DKP-92-AP of 5 BHP with the name of the complainant and to restore the connection of the tubewell of the complainant besides the opposite parties may also directed to pay damages of Rs.5000/- for unnecessary harassment caused to the complainant.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is an agriculturist having his land in village Dehriwal Daroga, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur alongwith his brothers. Earlier the land was belonging to his father Chanan Singh and after his death the same was inherited by the complainant and his brother Sulakhan Singh. An electric tubewell connection of 5 HP bearing account No.DKP-92 was running with the name of Chanan Singh father of the complainant and he was irrigating his land with this tubewell. After his death complainant alongwith his brother was irrigating this land which was inherited by them from his father. Sulakhan Singh brother of the complainant had filed an application for transfer of the above said connection with his name and had deposited its charges Rs.360/- vide receipt No.497/34773 alongwith death certificate of Chanan Singh and other necessary documents in the office of the opposite party, but the opposite party did not transfer the connection with his name and ultimately Sulakhan Singh died leaving behind his sons Lad Singh and Balraj Singh and his widow Nirmal Kaur. Now Lad Singh and Balraj Singh are residing in foreign country Australia. It is further submitted by the complainant he requested to the opposite parties to transfer the said tubewell connection with the name of complainant as his brother and his sons are agreed with the complainant for getting transferred the above said tubewell connection. The complainant also submitted his affidavit in support of his claim but the opposite parties denied to entertain any request and document of the complainant relating to transfer of tubewell connection. The opposite parties also disclosed that the said connection has been disconnected. The opposite parties never issued any notice to the complainant and his other co-owners about disconnecting the tubewell connection. The complainant is using electric energy for agriculture purpose regularly being son of the deceased Chanan Singh. The bills of all the tubewell connections have been dispensed with by the Punjab Government. Hence he is consumer of the other party. It is further submitted that complainant has requested many times to opposite parties to transfer the said connection with the name of the complainant after entertaining all the necessary documents and to restore the connection of the tubewell of the complainant, but the opposite parties have flatly refused to admit the claim of the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in the services of the opposite parties. The complainant prayed that opposite parties may be directed to transfer the said connection with the name of the complainant and to restore the connection of the tubewell of the complainant and opposite parties may also be directed to pay damages of Rs.5000/- for unnecessary harassment caused to the complainant.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared, filed its reply, raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and is time barred and act and conduct of the officials of the Corporation are protected under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act and the Indian Electricity Supply Act. On merits, it has been stated by the opposite parties that the connection AP-DKP-92 of 5 BHP was in the name of Chanan Singh resident of Dehriwal Daroga and same was disconnected on account of non payment of dues some where around 1995-96. It is further submitted by opposite parties that Chanan Singh was the recorded consumer of the Corporation and connection stood disconnected as state above. It is further submitted that the fact of the matter is that the connection due to non payment of the electricity dues stood disconnected some where in the year 1995-96 and it is submitted that no record prior to 1998 is available in Sub Division Dehriwal Daroga due to change of division of Sri Hargobindpur to division Dhariwal during the end of 1999 except the record i.e. service register and dispatch register. The fact remains that around 1998 i.e. 17.4.1998 Sulakhan Singh son of Chanan Singh approached Sub Division Dehriwal Daroga for changed of name and reconnection of the disconnected connection by depositing Rs.360/- fee. Accordingly the case file was sent to further necessary action alongwith estimate and costs of charges to XEN PSEB Division Sri Hargobindpur vide entry in the service register A & A No.3045 dated 17.4.1998 and vide dispatch number 2237 dated 16.9.1998 with charges of Rs.5000/- per connection and estimate cost of Rs.3000/- as other charges for approval by the competent authority. Thereafter it seems that Sulakhan Singh son of Chanan Singh had not approached the sub division Dehriwal Daroga for compliance or approached the opposite parties for any further necessary action and as such the connection remained disconnected in the name of Chanan Singh who is the original recorded consumer. It is further submitted that said Sulakhan Singh never approached thereafter for getting the connection in his name from the name of Chanan Singh and kept silent without any further action there may be dispute in the family as NOC required from all the members before change of name as rules, provisions, instructions and sales regulations require no objection from all the L.Rs. Now after a long gap and long inordinate delay, without approaching the answering opposite parties. The complaint lodged by Joginder Singh is without any rhyme and reason and laying claim over the connection which is disconnected as per record and such connection cannot be reconnected or granted as per provision instructions and sales regulations. There is no deficiency in service being rendered by opposite parties. The opposite parties prayed that complaint is false, baseless, without any merit and same be dismissed with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Kasturi Lal S.D.O. Ex.OPW1/A alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.
6. Written arguments not filed by the parties. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record carefully.
7. Both the parties have submitted their respective depositions and documents in support of their respective claims. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties, arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint. As per the version of the complainant that an electric tubewell connection of 5 BHP bearing No.DKP-92-AP was running with the name of Chanan Singh, father of the complainant and after his death complainant alongwith his brother was irrigating this land which was inherited by them from his father and Sulakhan Singh brother of the complainant had filed an application for transfer of the above said connection with his name and had deposited its charges Rs.360/- vide receipt No.497/34773 alongwith death certificate of Chanan Singh and other necessary documents in the office of the opposite party, but opposite party did not transfer the connection with his name and ultimately Sulakhan Singh died leaving behind his sons Lad Singh and Balraj Singh and his widow Nirmal Kaur. The complainant requested to the opposite parties to transfer the said tubewell connection with his name as his brother and his sons are agreed with the complainant for getting transferred the above said tubewell connection. The complainant also submitted his affidavit in support of his claim but opposite parties denied to entertain any request and documents of the complainant and opposite parties did not transfer the tubewell connection in the name of the complainant rather disconnected the tubewell connection without giving any reason. On the other hand opposite parties have admitted that the connection AP-DKP-92 of 5 BHP was in the name of Chanan Singh resident of Dehriwal Daroga and same was disconnected on account of non-payment of dues some where around 1995-96. However, it is submitted by the opposite parties that Chanan Singh is the recorded consumer of the Corporation and connection stood disconnected due to non-payment of the electricity dues and no record prior to 1998 is available in sub division Dehriwal Daroga due to change of division of Sri Hargobindpur to divison Dahriwal during the end of 1999, except the record i.e. service register and dispatch register. It is further submitted that on 17.4.1998 Sulakhan Singh son of Chanan Singh approached sub division Dehriwal Daroga for change of name and reconnection and depositged fee of Rs.360/- and the case file was sent to further necessary action alongwith estimate and costs of charges to XEN PSEB division Sri Hargobindpur vide entry in the service register A & A No.3045 dated 17.4.1998 and vide dispatch No.2237 dated 16.9.1998 with charges of Rs.5000/- per connection and estimate cost of Rs.3000/- as other charges for approval by the competent authority. This application as per record was sent to Sr. XEN office then division Sri Hargobindpur and thereafter in the year 1999 the division came under Sr.XEN PSPC Ltd. division Dhariwal and no record thereafter is available as the same is very old.
8. We have examined the evidence/documents available on the records and are of the considered opinion that opposite parties have filed reply of the complaint and affidavit of Kasturi Lal S.D.O., P.S.P.C. Ltd. Sub Division Dehriwal Daroga which is Ex.OPW1/A wherein it s admitted that as per record the original consumer is Chanan Singh and Chanan Singh consumer died in the year 1998 and after his death one Joginder Singh had approached in the year 1998 when the opposite party's office was under Sri Hargobindpur Division and one Sulakhan Singh had approached for reconnection of connection. Application sent for approval to competent authority vide application No.A & A No.3045 dated 17.4.1998 and was dispatched vide No.2237 dated 16.9.1998 with charges of Rs.5000/- per connection and estimated cost of Rs.3000/- alongwith other charges. This application as per record was sent to Sr.XEN office then division Sri Hargobindpur and thereafter in the year 1999 the division came under Sr.XEN PSPC Ltd. Division Dhariwal and no record thereafter is available as the same is very old. Now it is admitted by the opposite parties that Chanan Singh is the recorded consumer of the Corporation and Chanan Singh had died in the year 1998 and after his death his son Sulakhan Singh had applied for transfer of connection in his name and deposited the required fee and Sulakhan Singh had also died and after his death complainant Joginder Singh had filed this complaint against the opposite parties. Connection was with the father of complainant namely Chanan Singh and Chanan Singh father of the complainant has since been expired and present complainant being son is a beneficiary of the connection and as such is a consumer as defined under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The main objection taken by the opposite parties that complaint is time barred but this objection of the opposite parties is not tenable as the delay is not on the part of the complainant but delay is due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Previously the brother of the complainant had approached to the opposite parties and submitted documents and fulfill the required documents and required fees had been deposited and opposite parties had clearly admitted in their reply and in evidence of S.D.O. Kasturi Lal that vide application A & A No.3045 dated 17.4.1998 and was dispatched vide No.2237 dated 16.9.1998 was sent to Sr.XEN office then division Sri Hargobindpur and thereafter in the year 1999 the division came under Sr.XEN PSPCL Division Dhariwal and no record thereafter is available as the same is very old. But it is the duty of opposite parties to send information or notice to the complainant or legal heirs of Sulakhan Singh who also expired on 2.5.2013. Copy of death certificate is on the file as Ex.C2. Complainant Joginder Singh had filed the complaint being legal heirs and also beneficiary of Chanan Singh and Nirmal Kaur widow of Sulakhan Singh resident of village Dehriwal Daroga had also filed her affidavit that they have no objection if the said connection is restored and transferred with the name of Joginder Singh son of Chanan Singh resident of village Dehriwal Daroga Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Moreover, if record from the offices of opposite parties is not traceable then it is the negligence of the officials of department and it is deficiency in service and there is no fault of the complainant. If file is not traceable then it was the duty of the department to take action against the erring officials and no one can take benefit of his own wrong and this complaint of the complainant is within limitation.
9. By now, it has become settled proposition of law that the opposite parties have required to bring on record cogent and convincing evidence to prove its version but no such evidence has been placed on file by the opposite parties.
10. From the reasons recorded above this complaint is disposed off by giving directions to the parties. Complainant is directed to approach the opposite parties with all documentary proof in his possession alongwith affidavit of Nirmal Kaur and fulfill the office requirements if any for the transfer and restoration of the connection in the name of the complainant Joginder Singh. The opposite parties are also directed to transfer and restore the connection in the name of complainant within 30 days of the receipt of documents from the complainant.
11. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (Jagdeep Kaur)
March, 30 2015 Member
*YP*
