BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
                        REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
                                               Complaint  No.390 of 2015
                                               Date of Instt.    07.09.2015
                                               Date of Decision : 04.01.2016

Mangat Ram son of Late Sh.Kartar Chand, R/o H.No.ED-58, Dhan Mohalla, Khingra Gate, Jalandhar.
                                                                  ..........Complainant                                           Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Reru Chowk, Pathankot Bye Pass, Jalandhar through SDO.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman. 
                                                                  .........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.SC Sood Adv., counsel for complainant.
        Sh.Vishal Sodhi Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

             Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)
1.     Complainant Mangat Ram filed the present complaint against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited etc (OPs) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that OPs have not supplied the electricity without any reason and request for giving directions to the OPs to install the electricity connection in the premises of the complainant.
2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is resident of house No.ED-58, Dhan Mohalla, Khingra Gate, Jalandhar and applied for electricity connection in the said house vide receipt No.304925 on 26.8.2015 and also fulfilled all the formalities of the Ops; that complainant is co-owner in the house in dispute and also in lawful occupation of the same though there is dispute between the       co-sharer and a civil suit is also filed by the complainant against the co-sharer Asha Rani and Satpal and the learned Civil Court have granted injunction in favour of complainant and has also confirmed his possession by restraining Asha Rani and her late husband Satpal from interfering in his possession; that previously there was only one connection in the name of deceased Satpal but in order to harass the complainant, the said connection was disconnected and deprived the complainant from electricity supply; that complainant is residing in the property in dispute alongwith his daughter and wife and his daughter is studying in 10th class and is to appear in board examination and as such complainant applied for electricity connection but the OPs have not installed the electricity connection in connivance with co-sharer Asha Rani though previously Asha Rani filed a complaint No.278 of 2014 in District Forum which was decided by the Forum and a direction was issued to OP to install the electricity connection; that complainant is ready to pay consumption charges as well as electricity bill but OP is not installing the electricity connection in connivance with other co-sharer. Hence complaint was filed.
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 has no locus-standi to file the complaint as complainant failed to provide ownership proof and the other resident of the house have provided the copy of status-qua order issued by the Civil Court of Sh.Manav, Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar; that the complainant have twisted and manipulated the order dated 26.4.2013 and have not approached the Forum with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts. It was asserted that Asha Rani other resident of the house in dispute have given an application dated 28.8.2015 on which junior engineer Mr.Baldev Raj visited the spot and said Asha Rani delivered order dated 26.4.2013 passed by Sh.Manav, Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar vide which order of status-qua was passed and a copy of suit titled as Satpal etc Vs. Mangat Ram etc alongwith copy of gift deed dated 6.8.2002 and the said J.E reported on the demand note for new electricity connection at the disputed place can not be installed as there is a dispute between the brothers and case was cancelled. On merit, it was admitted that complainant has applied for installation of electricity connection in the house in dispute vide receipt No.304925 dated 26.8.2015 but it was asserted that complainant has failed to provide ownership proof in the said property. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were also denied either for want of knowledge or being incorrect and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
3.        Both the parties were given sufficient opportunities to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case.
4.        In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.
5.        On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW/A alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and closed evidence.
6.        We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7.        The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the house in dispute was the ownership of Sunder Dass grand father of complainant and Kartar Chand, farther of the complainant, was also residing in the house in dispute alongwith his brothers Satpal etc. He contended that previously the electricity connection was installed in the name of Sunder Dass in the house in dispute through which complainant was also getting electricity to his portion but later on the said electricity connection was disconnected and Asha Rani aunt of the complainant applied for new electricity connection which was disputed by the complainant and he filed the status-qua order but Asha Rani filed a complaint in the then District Forum bearing No.278 of 2014 and same was allowed and OP was directed to install the electricity connection in the house in dispute in the name of Asha Rani and in that process, the previous connection was disconnected and new electricity connection in the name of Asha Rani was installed and as such electricity supply to the portion of complainant was disconnected due to which reason, complainant have applied for new electricity connection but Asha Rani and her deceased husband Satpal connived with OP and OPs have refused to install the electricity connection without any sufficient reason though complainant is entitled to electricity supply in order to enjoy the portion in possession of the complainant and as such complaint is required to be allowed and OP is required to be directed to install the new electricity connection in the name of complainant in the portion in his possession and complainant is also entitled to compensation and litigation expenses.
8.        Learned counsel for the OPs contended that complainant though applied for electricity connection in the house in dispute but failed to provide any ownership proof of the house and other           co-sharer Asha Rani have given an application Ex.OP4 to the OP disputing the issue of electricity connection in the name of complainant in the house in dispute on which an inquiry was got conducted by the OPs and inquiry report Ex.OP1 also shows that there is ownership dispute between the complainant and other co-sharer and the concerned official also gave a noting on the application/receipt Ex.OP5 recommending cancellation of the application due to property dispute between the brothers. He contended that simple filing of application for new connection alongwith earnest money, complainant does not become consumer under the OP and as such complaint under Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainant is not maintainable. He also contended that even otherwise electricity connection in the house in dispute is not in the name of the complainant and as such complainant is not entitled to file complaint as he is not consumer under the OP. He supported his arguments with case titled as Vijay Kumar-Appellant Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board-Respondent 2002 (1) Consumer Protection Judgment Page 207 and case titled as B.J.P Starch-Appellant Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors-Respondent 1998 (1) Consumer Protection Judgment Page 504 and contended that case of the complainant is false and is liable to be dismissed.
9.        After going through the record of the case, documents and evidence produced by the parties on the file, this Forum finds force in the contention of learned counsel for the complainant. Admittedly, there is property dispute between the successor of Sunder Dass. Satpal was husband of Asha Rani and was son of Sunder Dass. Previously, Satpal and Asha Rani filed a civil suit against complainant Mangat Ram and his wife Deepa for possession in which it was alleged that Sunder Dass grand father of complainant and father of Satpal was the exclusive owner of the house in dispute. It is also alleged in the plaint Ex.OP3 that Sunder Dass was having four sons namely Saling Ram, Lekh Raj,     Satpal and Kartar Chand. Satpal was husband of Asha Rani and Kartar Chand was father of complainant. Previously electric connection in the house in dispute was disconnected and later on Asha Rani filed an application with the OP for installation of electricity connection which was objected by the complainant on the ground that complainant have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against Satpal and Asha Rani in which a status-qua order Ex.C2 has been passed by Sh.Manav, Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar but as the said status-qua order was only regarding possession and construction in the suit property, the complaint filed by Asha Rani was allowed by the then Learned District Forum, Jalandhar and electricity connection in the name of Asha Rani was installed. The said complaint was allowed on the ground that Asha Rani etc seems to be in possession of portion of the house in dispute and as such they are entitled for electricity supply and complaint of Asha Rani was allowed vide order Ex.C6. Now the contention of complainant is also that he is in possession of portion of house in dispute and requires electricity supply in order to enjoy the possession of said portion and have also applied for installation of electricity connection but the OP have refused to install the electricity connection on the objection of Asha Rani. Otherwise, Satpal and Asha Rani filed a civil suit Ex.OP3 for possession against Mangat Ram complainant contending that Mangat Ram is in unauthorized possession of the portion of the said house. It means that complainant  undoubtedly, is in a established possession of portion of the house in dispute and as such requires supply of electricity in order to effectively enjoy the possession of the said portion. Admittedly, complainant have applied for supply of electricity connection and have deposited charges for the same vide application Ex.C4. The case law referred by learned counsel for the OP are not applicable to the case in hand as the facts of the referred cases are quite distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. In case Vijay Kumar-Appellant Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board-Respondent (Supra) the meter was not in the name of the complainant and as such it was held that complainant is not consumer of the OP and is not entitled to file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act but in the case in hand complainant have applied for electricity connection to the OPs and have also deposited charges for the same and as such complainant is also now consumer of the OP as the OP have received the charges for installation of electricity connection. In case titled as B.J.P Starch-Appellant Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors-Respondent (Supra) only earnest money was deposited and other charges such as development charges, labour charges, meter caution deposit, meter connection deposit and service connection charges were yet to be deposited but in the case in hand the receipt Ex.C4 shows that complainant have also deposited meter security deposit, initial security deposit and service connection charges also. As such, the facts of the referred cases are quite distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. In the case in hand, the complainant have deposited all the charges for release of new electricity connection and his case is at better footing than the case of Asha Rani which was allowed by the then Learned District Forum vide order dated 20.3.2015 Ex.C6 because the complainant is in a establish possession of the portion in the house in dispute because Asha Rani and Satpal have filed a suit for possession against Mangat Ram on the ground that Mangat Ram is in unauthorized possession of a portion of the house in dispute which shows that Mangat Ram is undoubtedly in possession of house in dispute and there is property dispute between the co-sharer as Mangat Ram is son of Kartar Chand who was son of Sunder Dass who was exclusive owner of house in dispute. As such complainant is also entitled to electricity connection in the portion of the house in dispute in his possession because electricity is a necessity in the modern time particularly when complainant have a daughter studying in 10th class and is to appear in board examination.
10.        In the light of above discussion, the complaint is allowed in favour of the complainant and against the OPs and OPs are directed to install the electricity connection in the portion of the house in dispute in possession of complainant Mangat Ram after completing other necessary formalities of the OP. In view of peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost.  The OPs are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which complainant can proceed under section 25/27 of C.P.Act. 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
04.01.2016          Member                Member                  President