BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.439 of 2016

Date of Instt. 24.10.2016

Date of Decision: 11.07.2018

Rani W/o Sh. Tilak Raj R/o Mohalla Sunder Nagar, Noorpur Colony, Opposite Bikkar Di Dairy, Dhogri Road, Pathankot Bye Pass, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2. SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Near Pathankot Bye Pass, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Gurvinder Arora, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. KL Dua, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that she is residing in a house situated at Mohalla Sunder Nagar, Noorpur Colony, Opposite Bikkar Di Dairy, Dhogri Road, Pathankot Bye Pass, Jalandhar along with her family members since May 2011. The complainant filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against one Mohinder Pal S/o Sh. Bakshi Ram, who was interfering into peaceful possession and the said suit was decreed by the Court of Sh. Simran Singh, CJJD, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 17.04.2014. Then Mohinder Pal also filed an ejectment petition against the complainant, which was dismissed by the Court of Sh. Amrish Kumar, Rent Controller, Jalandhar, vide order dated 18.12.2013. The said Mohinder Pal filed an appeal against the aforesaid order, the said appeal was also dismissed by the Court of Sh. V.K. Goel, the then Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar, vide order dated 27.05.2014.

2. Apart from Mohinder Pal, his wife Harinder Kaur also filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the complainant for her eviction, which was also dismissed on 31.01.2015, then sister of the Mohinder Pal namely Palo filed an other ejectment petition against the complainant, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 21.10.2015 and against that order, appeal was also filed by Smt. Palo, which was also dismissed by the Court of Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Addl. District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, vide order dated 12.05.2016.

3. The complainant is in peaceful possession of the house in question, but Mohinder Pal, Harjinder Kaur and Palo were claiming themselves to be landlord of the property in question and it was not established that if there is any landlord-tenant relationship between the complainant and the above said persons and even the complainant was also not found to be in unlawful possession of the above said house. The complainant had applied for electric connection in the house in question with the OPs and also deposited the fee of Rs.1420/-, vide receipt No.467 dated 20.10.2014 to the OPs. The said fee was paid by the complainant on representation made by the OPs that the electric connection will be installed in the name of the complainant in the house in question. However, sufficient time has been elapsed and the OPs are putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and till date no electric connection has been installed in the house in question causing hell like situation for the complainant.

4. That the complainant has been requesting number of times to the OPs to install the electric connection since he has deposited the requisite fee of Rs.1420/-, but the OPs are putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The above said act on the part of the OPs to deny electric connection after receipt of the payment is not only illegal, but tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to install electric connection in the property in question situated at Mohall Sunder Nagar, Noorpur Colony, Opposite Bikkar Di Dairy, Dhogri Road, Pathanakot Bye Pass, Jalandhar and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant.

5. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed its joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking the preliminary objections that no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present false and frivolous complaint and further alleged that the complainant is barred by her act and conduct from filing the present complaint. It is further alleged that the complainant has not disclosed the true facts and has misrepresented and has concealed the true facts and as such, complainant is not entitled for any relief. It is further alleged that as per rules and regulations if the premises, where the electricity connection has been disconnected due to non payment of the electricity charges and there is some defaulting amount is outstanding, then the connection can not be installed at that place, till the defaulting amount is paid and further submitted that the present complaint is the misuse of the process of law. The complainant is trying to play fraud with the Forum by misleading facts and in order to defeat the legal right of the OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and even the complainant is not the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and thus, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the factum in regard to deposit of the fee is only admitted, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and further submitted that the procedure for getting electricity connection is that who so ever required an electricity connection, he has to go to the Suvidha Centre and apply for the electric connection, supported by all the documents of his title to the property, where the connection is to be installed. The said application is processed and if found in order, then the SCO i.e. Service Connection Order is issued by the Suvidha Centre. In this case, the SCO was issued on 20.10.2014, i.e. the day the fee was deposited. The concerned JE went to the spot for the installation of the connection, but as per the report of the JE “Is jagah te case chalda hai ate defaulting amount vi rehndi hai khata No.NP 45/580 de”. Due to the said reasons, the connection was not installed and the SCO was cancelled. It is in the knowledge of the complainant and she has concealed this fact from the Forum and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly swrong affidavit Ex.C-A alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 Copy of Receipt No.467, Ex.C-2 Copy of Aadhar Card of complainant, Ex.C-3 Copy of Judgment dated 20.07.2012, Ex.C-4 Copy of Order dated 17.04.2014 and Ex.C-5 Copy of Order dated 18.12.2013 and then closed the evidence.

7. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Jaspal Singh as Ex.OPA and some documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP5 and then closed the evidence.

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

9. After perusing the pleading as well as documents placed on the file, it reveals that the complainant alleged that she is in possession of a house situated at Mohalla Sunder Nagar, Noorpur Colony, Opposite Bikkar Di Dairy, Dhogri Road, Pathankot Bye Pass, Jalandhar since May 2011 and upon that house, one Mohinder Pal as well as his wife Harjinder Kaur and his sister Palo are claiming that there are owner of the said house and accordingly, they filed a civil suit as well as ejectment application, but the same was not decided in their favour and thus, the possession of the complainant is established and accordingly, the complainant applied for electricity connection after depositing the requisite fee of Rs.1420/- with the OPs and receipt of the deposit is available on the file Ex.C-1 and Aadhar Card of the complainant Ex.C-2 and further alleged that despite getting requisite fee from the complainant, the OP failed to install electricity connection in the house of the complainant, which is tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and sought a direction from this Forum to the OP to install an electricity connection in the house of the complainant and also pay compensation.

10. The plea of the complainant is controverted by the OPs by taking a plea that the complainant herself concealed the material facts from this Forum because there was a civil litigation between the complainant and One Mohinder Pal, Harjinder Kaur and Palo and moreover, as per the report of the JE, some defaulting amount is still due towards the house in question and till the said amount is not paid, new connection cannot be installed in the same house and also prayed that the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed with heavy cost.

11. From the above submission, it emerges that the complainant has admittedly deposited the fee of Rs.1420/- for getting electricity connection, but the procedure elaborated by the OP in its written reply itself speaks that there is no direct role of the OP, who checked the exact situation at the spot, at the time of depositing of the fee, being reason, the fee as well as other documents is required to be deposited with the Suvidha Centre and after verifying the documents, the Suvidha Centre itself issue SCO i.e. Service Connection Order and thereafter, role of the OPs started and accordingly, after getting SCO, the JE went to the spot for installation connection and reported that there is a dispute of the house in question and moreover, some defaulting amount is lying pending upon that property and report of the JE is available on the file Ex.O-1 and these versions have been fortified by the Engineer Jaspal Singh by submitting his affidavit Ex.OPA.

12. It is admitted fact that the plea taken by the OP that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum, is a virtually true version of the OP because the complainant himself, tactfully does not disclose in the complaint that in what capacity, she is in possession of the house in question and further in the litigation, the status of the complainant is established as a tenant, same can be perused from the copy of the judgment Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, but the complainant for the best known reason did not mention the factum that she is a tenant of the house in dispute.

13. Leaving aside the above issue, if we go further to the point whether the complainant is entitled for installation of the electricity connection in the house, where she is residing even as a tenant, no doubt, if the possession of the complainant is established in any manner, then she can get electricity connection till she remained in possession over the said property. But in this case, the situation is entirely different because the complainant herself alleged in para No.1 of the complaint that she is residing in the house in question with her family since May 2011, but the year of possession 2011 itself is not a true version of the complainant because in a civil suit filed by the complainant decided on 17.04.2014, vide judgment Ex.C-4, stated therein in para No.2 of the judgment that she is residing in the house at monthly rent of Rs.1200/- since April 2006 and thereafter, the rent of tenanted premises was increased mutually to Rs.1500/- per month since October, 2010. So, it means the complainant is residing in the house since April 2006 and the instant complaint filed in the year 2016, means after 10 years of the initial point of residing in the house in question and it is strained to accept that since April, 2016, the complainant is residing without electricity, she did not disclose whether there is any electricity connection in the house or not prior to applying for new connection. So, it means that the complainant herself suppressed the material facts from the Forum just to get favourable decision, which is not allowed as per law because the complainant as well as OPs are required to come in the Forum with clean hands. If the complainant is residing in the house since April 2006, then it presume that there must be an electricity connection, which might be disconnected for want of electricity charges and this factum has also come in the judgment dated 18.12.2013 Ex.C-5 at Para No.2, which is as under:-

“The rent for the whole portion under occupation of the respondent was fixed at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month along with half share of electricity charges”.

14. As per version of the Mohinder Pal, complainant is required to pay 50% electricity charges, which was obviously not paid and the electricity connection was disconnected and instead of depositing the previous charges, the complainant opted an easy path to get a new connection in her own name, which is not allowed by the rule and regulation of the electricity board as alleged by the OP in its own reply, so with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has remedy to deposit the defaulting charges of previous connection and get it restored not to get a new connection and as such, we do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

15. 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 Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

11.07.2018 Member President