BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.231 of 2016

Date of Instt. 26.05.2016

Date of Decision: 27.09.2017

Malkiat Singh aged about 72 years S/o Piara Singh R/o Vill. Jandir, Sub-Tehsil Bhogpur, Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Through its Chairman the Mall, Patiala.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.Sub Division, Office-2, through its SDO-2/Authorized Office, Bhogpur, Jalandhar.

….… Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. RK Bhardwaj, Adv Counsel for the complainant.

Sh. AS Saini, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 & 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OPs are providing electricity to the general public considerably throughout Punjab and the complainant is a consumer of the same. The complainant is owner in possession of land to the extent of his share in the Land measuring 26 Kanals 19 Marlas, comprised in Khewat No.72, Khatauni No.75, Khasra No.22//5/1/1 min(1-17),6/2/1 min(1-17),15/1 min(1-10),16min(2-0), Khatuni No.76, Khasra No.22//5/1/1(1-17), 6/2/1min(1-17), 15/1(1-09), 16min(1-17), Khatuni No.77, Khasra No.22//5/1/1min(1-1), 6/2/1(3-14), 15/1(3-0), 15/3(0-7), 16 min(4-0), 25/1(1-3) as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 2006-07, situated at Vill. Sikanderpur, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

2. That the complainant got applied electric meter on 26.10.2015, after paying the necessary security fees and other ancillary expenses to the OPs. At the time of submitting form (A & A), it was assured by the OPs that the electric meter will be installed at the premises of the complainant within 7-10 days. Even, the complainant furnished the indemnity bonds as per the requirement of the OPs. However, the OPs did not release the electric connection and dilly delayed the matter for one reason or other. The complainant visited the office of the OPs number of times and requested the OPs to release the electric connection, however all in vain. The complainant also came to know that one Darshan Singh, who is maintaining inimical relations with the complainant, has moved a false and frivolous complaint to the OPs and the OPs being hand in glove with Darshan Singh are refusing to release the electric connection. That electricity is a basic amenity in these days especially in summer season, however the OPs are not releasing the same. Act and Conduct of the OPs have cast a cloud over the rights of the complainant. The complainant is a consumer of the OPs as the complainant has applied the electric connection as well as paid the requisite fees and the same has been accepted by the OPs. However, the OPs without any rhyme or reason are refusing to install electric meter. This act of the OPs amounts to monopolistic tendencies and is unfair trade practice on which the complainant is victim and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP No.1 and 2 be directed to release the electric connection in favour of the complainant and further OP No.1 and 2 be directed to pay compensation for harassment and inconvenience to the complainant, a sum of Rs.50,000/- and also be directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.20,000/-

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly both the OPs appeared through their counsel and filed joint reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with a special cost. It is further submitted that the specific portion of the land, where the complainant has applied for the electric connection is a disputed land between the plaintiff and one Darshan Singh S/o Sh. Ranjit Singh and a status-quo order was also passed by the Civil Court, in regard to the said land. Therefore, the connection cannot be released in the said disputed land in order to avoid the involvement of the OP in other litigation between the parties. Further, the question regarding the rights of the party over the property is subjudice and is pending in the Civil Court at Jalandhar and further averred that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and even the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as the complainant is not the absolute owner of the property and as per the complaint submitted by one Darshan Singh, the property in question is disputed and a Status-quo order has been passed by the Court of Sh. Munish Garg, Civil Judge Junior Division, Jalandhar and further partition proceeding regarding the property in question has been decided against the complainant and the land in question has fallen to the share of the other co-sharers and further submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and thus this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint and further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has applied for installation of electricity connection and also deposited the requisite fee but the other allegations as made by the complainant are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence of the complainant.

5. Similarly counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.O-1 alongwith some documents Ex.O-2 and Ex.O-3 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. Briefly, the case set up by the complainant is that he is owner in possession over the land came to in his share from the joint property of 26 Kanals 19 Marlas, regarding that the complainant has brought on the file copy of Jamabandi for the year 2012-13 and further alleged that he being owner in possession to the extent of his share, has applied for installation of electricity connection in the said portion, on 26.10.2015 and assurance was given to the complainant that the electricity connection will be installed within 7-10 days but despite repeated request, the said electricity connection is not installed, simply on the ground that one Darshan Singh, who has inimical relations with the complainant, moved a false and frivolous complaint to the OPs, for not installing a connection, whereas the complainant is in possession over the property in dispute and therefore, he is entitled to get an electricity connection, which is basic amenity of the life and to prove his case, the complainant also placed on file photostat copy of the application given to the OP for installation of the electricity connection is Ex.C1 and test report Ex.C3, Indemnity Bond Ex.C4 and receipts, whereby deposited the security and other ancillary amount are Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 and further prayed that the OPs be directed to install the connection. The case of the complainant is refuted by the OPs, simply on the ground that the complainant is not the consumer of the OP and as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case but we have considered this plea of the OP and found that the complainant has applied for installation of the electricity connection through an application Ex.C1 and also deposited the requisite fee, vide receipts Ex.C5 and Ex.C6. So, when fee is deposited alongwith the application, then the complainant himself becomes the consumer of the OP and OP becomes the service provider. So, accordingly, we do not find any force in this submission of the learned counsel for the OP.

8. Furthermore, the contention of the OP is only that the land, where the complainant wants to get installed the electricity connection is not sole ownership of the complainant rather the said property is a joint property and this fact is not disputed because the complainant himself elaborated in para No.2 of the complaint that there is joint property of 26 kanals 19 marlas and this factum is also established from the Jamabandi Ex.C2 and further the OP alleged that the property, where the complainant wants to install the electricity connection is a disputed one and regarding that a case is pending before the Civil Court and copy of the order of the Civil Court, whereby status quo order was passed, is produced on the file by the OPs, which is Ex.O3.

9. Apart from the above order of the Court, one another application Ex.O2 produced on the file by the OP, submitted by Darshan Singh, Co-Owner of the property and through this application, he made a request to the OPs that the electricity connection in the disputed property in the name of the complainant be not installed and due to the complaint of Darshan Singh as well as pendency of the litigation before Civil Court, the OPs are hesitating to install an electricity connection.

10. We have considered the above said factum and found that the basic rule of the electricity board is only to install a connection on the property, which is exclusively and legally in possession of the party, ownership is not required, simply legal possession is required but in this complaint, the complainant has not alleged that on which portion, he is in possession and even the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint whether he has raised any construction over the joint property, where he wants to get installed electricity connection, if he raised the construction, then he has to place on the file site plan of the said specific portion. The complainant has an alternative way to prove on the file that he is in actual possession over the said portion, where he wants to install electricity connection, the complainant can brought on the file copy of any partition order or family partition, where-from we can construe that the plaintiff is in possession in a specific portion of the joint property, but there is no such type of document and accordingly, we came to conclusion that if the complainant himself failed to establish and prove on the file that he is in exclusive possession over any part of the joint property, then he is not entitled for getting electricity connection and thus, we do not find any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly, we reach to the conclusion that the compliant of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

27.09.2017 Member President