Punjab

Moga

CC/16/78

Baljinder Kaurr - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajvinder Singh

02 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                                                                                                                                               CC No. 78 of 2016

                                                                                                                                                               Instituted on: 09.03.2016

                                                                                                                                                               Decided on: 02.08.2016

 

Baljinder Kaur aged about 67 years d/o Isar Kaur wd/o Prem Singh s/o Gurdit Singh Ramgaria, Patti Rupa, Village & Post Office Kokari Kalan, District Moga at present w/o Darshan Singh, House no.927, Street no.9, Ganesha Basti, Bathinda, District Bathinda.

                                                                          ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       The Chief Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Regd. Office PSEB, The Mall, Patiala-147001.

 

2.       The Senior Executive Engineer, Sub-Urban Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, G.T. Road, Moga, District Moga.

 

3.       The Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Ajitwal, District Moga.

 

4.       Tarlochan Singh Ramgaria s/o Sardara Singh r/o Patti Rupa, Village Kokari Kalan, District Moga.

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 and 14  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Rajvinder Singh, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Raj Kumar Goyal, Advocate Cl. for opposite party nos. 1 to 3.

                   Sh. Amardeep Singh, Advocate Cl. for opposite party no.4.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the Chief Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Regd. Office PSEB, The Mall, Patiala and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to produce the Security Fee Register of the year 1969-70 in the Forum and to install the electric meter bearing no. KF-62/1901 of complainant by disconnecting and removing the electric meter no. 65/532 from the house of the complainant. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 1 lac as compensation to the complainant due to mental, physical and economic harassment of the complainant and deficiency of service to the complainant alongwith any other and further relief which this Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the complaint.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the opposite party nos.1 to 3 electricity department is the service providing authority and the electric connection no. KF-62/1901 was issued and installed by opposite party nos.1 to 3 in the name of complainant and the complainant was paying the consumption bills regularly. In the year 1969, the complainant applied for a domestic electric connection in her name in the house of Prem Singh which was inherited by Isar Kaur and afterwards to the complainant and her other sisters. The connection was sanctioned and installed in the name of complainant in the year 1969. The house of the complainant is adjacent with the house of Tarlochan Singh/opposite party no.4 and the house of Harbans Singh Ramgaria s/o Sardara Singh in Patti Rupa Village Kokari Kalan, District Moga. After the marriage of complainant and after the death of Isar Kaur complainant shifted to her in-laws house and she allowed Tarlochan Singh to look after her house at village Kokari Kalan, Distrcit Moga. As complainant was residing with her husband in Ganesha Basti, Bathinda, near about in the year 1987-88, the connection of complainant was disconnected in-default for non-payment of the electric consumption bills. The abovesaid Tarlochan Singh s/o Sardara Singh got his electric meter a/c no. KF-65/532 shifted in the building of the house of complainant without the knowledge and consent of complainant inclusion with opposite party no.3. It is the settled law of the PSPCL that no new electric connection should install or shifted in the building where from the defaulter electric meter disconnected or removed. It is the matter of great surprise how the running meter of Tarlochan Singh was shifted from his house to the house of complainant without any proper inquiry or notice to the complainant. When in the year 2010 abovesaid Tarlochan Singh renovated the roofs of the building of the house of complainant without getting the permission of complainant, complainant filed an application on dated 14.08.2010 under RTI Act, 2005 to get the information from the office of the opposite party no.3 why her meter was removed and why the meter a/c no. KF-65/532 was installed in her building, but no proper reply was given by the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 to complainant. After running from pillar to post complainant approached to the office of opposite party no.3 personally and inquired about her abovesaid representations. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the office of opposite party no.2 suggested the complainant to apply for a new connection and deposited Rs. 1390/- on 20.08.2010 as security for new connection. The junior engineer electrical of the are submitted his spot inspection report to the Assistant Executive Engineer/opposite party no.3 that there is already a electric meter running in the building of the complainant, but without taking any notice to the report, the Assistant Executive Engineer ordered to install the electric meter on the pole near the house of the complainant. The concerned Junior Engineer installed the meter on the pole without connecting the supply to the Main-board and wiring to the house of the complainant. The complainant was regularly paying the bills of her new connection a/c no. KF-62/1901 without consuming any electricity. The complainant again submitted her written representations on dated 14.09.2010, 20.09.2010 and so on 04.02.2014, 11.03.2014, 17.03.2014, 21.03.2014 through courier post and through registered post to the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and demanded the inquiry, but nothing has been done by the office of opposite party nos. 2 & 3. The complainant also issued a legal notice through his counsel on 21.12.2015. But no reply was given by opposite party nos.1 to 3. Further no other complaint of similar nature has been pending or decided by this Forum or by other Forum of other District than a Civil Suit which was dismissed due to deficient services of opposite party nos.1 to 3 and negligent statement of opposite party nos.1 to 3 under the influence of internal intimacy with opposite party no.4. Due to the abovesaid acts of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered a lot mentally, physically and financially. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their separate written replies.

                   Opposite party nos.1 to 3 filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable, as the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has not come with clean hands and she is not entitled to any relief as claimed by her. On merits, the actual facts submitted as follows: the complainant has dispute with opposite party no.4 regarding the house, because she has also stated with the police authority on 19.02.2011 that opposite party no.4 has demolished the common wall with their consent for use of the property and now he is refusing to vacate the said property and the complainant also filed Civil Suit titled as Baljinder Kaur V/s Tirlochan Singh etc. which was dismissed by the court of Smt. Gurjit Kaur Dhillon, Civil Judge (J.D), Moga on 03.12.2014 and her another suit was also dismissed on 11.09.2013 by the court of Sh. Anish Goyal, Civil Judge (J.D.), Moga and now after loosing her battle from Civil Courts, she has filed the present complaint, which is totally false and frivolous. Further no connection was shifted from the house of Tirlochan Singh. Actually common wall was demolished by Tirlochan Singh with consent of the complainant and the complainant is living at Bathinda as per her version and the said Tirlochan Singh is not vacating her premises and only due to this, complainant is unnecessarily filing false cases. Further whatever record was available with the answering opposite parties. They gave reply accordingly as the record was very old and due to termite and leakage of the building and shifting of record from Nathuwala Sub Division to Ajitwal Sub Division. Old record is not available and now the record is computerized and as per ledger opposite party no.4 is consumer of the said electric connection, which was issued to him after completing the formalities. Further submitted that actually the complainant moved an application dated 7.10.2014 with opposite party no.3 to give supply to her through connection no. KF-62/1901. Accordingly her meter was installed on the pole near to the house and this was done only at the request of the complainant. Further submitted that the complainant moved to State Information Commission, Chandigarh and her appeal was also closed on 08.01.2015 and now again the complainant has tried to re-opening the matter by filing the present complaint. Further by sending false notice no one can get wrong benefit. The all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

4.                Opposite party no.4 filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. Previously the complainant Baljinder Kaur filed a civil suit titled as Baljinder Kaur Vs Tarlochan Singh and others for mandatory injunction directing the defendants no.1 (answering opposite party no.4 in the present case) and defendant no.9 (a), 9 (b) (who are opposite party nos. 1 to 3 in the present case) for removing the electric meter bearing account no. K65/432 from the house in the court of Mrs.Gurjit Kaur Dhilloan, PCS, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga. It was case no.RT-715/04-01-2013, filed on 10.12.2010. The answering opposite party no.4 appeared in that civil suit and filed his written statement. The suit has been dismissed by the court of Mrs.Gurjit Kaur Dhilloan, PCS, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga vide judgement and decree dated 03.12.2014. The above mentioned suit has been decided on merits after hearing both the parties. After dismissal of said suit, the plaintiff/complainant preferred an appeal which is pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Moga. Now, she has filed the present false, frivolous and baseless complaint on the same subject matter regarding the same dispute and same parties. The matter in dispute has already been decided by the civil court and the same cannot be re-agitated and re-opened before this Forum. In these circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to any relief against the answering opposite party; that the complainant has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant is neither owner of any property in village Kokri Kalan, nor she ever remained in possession of any such property and there is no electric connection in the name of the complainant, so the question of negligent or deficient services by opposite party nos.1 to 3 does not arise at all. Moreover, the opposite party nos.1 to 3 are government employees and they have no personal interest in the property or connection; that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable; that the complainant is estopped to file the present complaint by her own act and conduct; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear, try or decide the present complaint. This Forum has no jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and decree of the civil court in any manner. On merits, it is submitted that the pleadings of the complainant are self contradictory, on one hand the complainant alleged that connection was got removed and on the other hand, she has pleaded that she is paying the consumption charges. Further the all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

5.                In order to prove the case, complainant Smt. Baljinder Kaur tendered in evidence her duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-44 and closed the evidence. 

6.                In rebuttal, the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 tendered in their evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Jhalman Dass, S.D.O. Ex. OP-1 to 3/1 and copies of documents Ex. OP-1 to 3/2 to Ex. OP-1 to 3/14 and closed the evidence. Whereas, opposite party no.4 tendered in his evidence affidavit of Sh. Tarlochan Singh s/o Sardara Singh Ex. OP-4/1 and copies of documents Ex. OP-4/2 to Ex. OP-4/5.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

8.                The ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant had a domestic electric connection installed in her residence issued by OPs and she is the consumer of Ops. It is humbly submitted that in 1969, when PSPCL was a Board, complainant applied for a domestic electric connection in her name in the house of Prem Singh, which was inherited by Isar Kaur and thereafter, by complainant and her sisters and then electric connection was installed by OPs in 1969. It is further submitted that house of complainant was adjacent to the house of Tarlochan Singh/Op-4 and after her marriage, she allowed OP-4 to look after her house. It is contended that connection of complainant was disconnected by OPs due to non payment of power consumption bills and OP-4 got shifted his electric meter bearing a/c no. KF-65/532 in the house of complainant without her knowledge and consent in connivance with OP-3. Ld counsel for complainant submitted that as per rules of PSPCL, no new electrical connection should be installed or shifted in the building from where the default meter is disconnected or removed, but it is matter of surprise that electric connection of OP-4 is shifted from his house to the house of complainant  without any inquiry or notice to her. On 14.08.2010, complainant filed an application under Right to Information Act to know the reason for removing her meter and for installing the meter of Op-4 at the place of complainant, but OP-2 and 3 did not give any reply. Complainant made  great efforts to enquire about the matter, but all in vain, then, Assistant Executive Engineer of OP-3 suggested her to apply for a new connection. Complainant did so and deposited Rs.1,390/- as security with OPs on 20.08.2010 for new connection. Concerned JE gave report to AEE/Op-3 that there is already an electric meter running the building of complainant, but without taking any notice to the report, AEE ordered to install the new electric meter on the pole near the house of complainant and then, concerned JE installed the meter on the pole without connecting the supply to the Main-Board and wiring to the house of complainant. Complainant is now regularly paying the bills for new meter even without consuming power. Thereafter, complainant submitted many representations before OPs dt 14.09.2010; 20.09.2010; 4.02.2014; 11.03.2014; 17.03.2014 and 21.03.2014 through courier and registered post demanding enquiry, but all in vain. All these acts of Ops amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. She has prayed that Ops may be directed to install the electric meter connection bearing no. KF-62/1901 of complainant by disconnecting and removing the connection no. 65//532 from her house and to produce Security Fee Register and also to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses.

9.                To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for Ops 1 to 3 argued that complaint is not maintainable as she has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  All the other allegations levelled by complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and asserted that domestic connection earlier issued by them to complainant was disconnected due to non payment of bills. Ld Counsel for OP-1 to 3 brought before the Forum that complainant has some property dispute with OP-4, who demolished the common  wall with the consent of complainant for use of property and now he is refusing to vacate the said place and complainant also filed Civil Suit titled as Baljinder Kaur Vs Tirlochan Singh, which was dismissed by Ld Court of Smt Gurjit Kaur Dhillon, Civil Judge (Jr Div.), Moga and her other suit was also dismissed by Court. It is further averred that no connection was shifted from the house of Tirlochan Singh and complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass the OPs as   Op-4 is not vacating the property of complainant. It is further submitted that due to termites and leakage and due to shifting of record from Nathuwala Sub Division to Ajitwal Sub Division, old  record is not available with them and whatever record was available with them, they supplied the same to complainant. Complainant applied for electric connection and same was given to her and meter was installed on the pole near the house and it was done on request of complainant. Complainant even moved to State Information Commission, Chandigarh and her appeal was closed on 8.01.2015, but now, she reopening the same by filing the present complainant. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are refuted and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 to 3. Ld counsel for OP-1 to 3 has prayed for dismissal of present complaint.

10.              OP-4 controvert the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant filed a civil suit bearing no. RT-715/4.01.2013 against him seeking directions to OP-1 to 3 to remove the electric connection in dispute from the house, which was dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge Jr Division, Moga. It was decided  on merits after hearing both the parties. Thereafter, complainant preferred appeal which is pending in the court of Addl District Judge, Moga. Now, complainant has filed the present complaint on same subject matter regarding same dispute against same parties, which has already been decided by Civil Court and it cannot be reopened in this Forum. It is averred that complainant has no cause of action and she is estopped to file the present complaint by own act and conduct. It is further averred that 10 years ago Op-4 demolished the old and unsafe portion of his own house and at that time, complainant did not raise any objection and now, she has neither right or interest in the property of OP-4 nor in the connection in dispute of OP-4. All the other allegations have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

11.              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as Ops and have carefully gone through the evidence and record placed on file.

12.              The case of the complainant is that earlier she had an electric connection and complainant after her marriage cohabitated with her husband and allowed Op-4 to look her house, where connection in dispute was installed. The said connection was disconnected by OP-1 to 3 due to non payment of power consumption bills. Complainant alleges that OP-4 in connivance with OP-1 to 3 got shifted his electric meter from his own house to the house of complainant without her consent and notice to her. Complainant enquired regarding installation of meter of OP-4 at her house through several representations but all in vain. In reply, OP-1 to 3 asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of them and they have supplied all the record available with them to complainant. Their counsel submitted that there is property dispute between complainant and OP-4 and she has filed the present complaint on false grounds only to harass them. OP-4 asserted that complainant has already filed suit against him before Civil Court, which was dismissed and now, she has filed present complaint on same cause of action against same parties regarding same dispute. As per OP-4, complainant has no right or interest in the property of OP-4 or in the connection of OP-4.

13.              We have thoroughly gone through the file and evidence led by both the parties and from the perusal of the file, it is transpired that there is a dispute between complainant and OP-4 regarding ownership of the property, where the alleged electric connection in dispute is installed. Earlier complainant filed a suit for the possession of the alleged property before the Civil Court, Moga, which was titled as Baljinder Kaur Vs Tirlochan Singh. It was case no. 159 of 15.06.2012 and was decided on 11.09.2013 by the court of Ld Sh Anish Garg PCS, Civil Judge (Jr Division) Moga, wherein ld Civil Judge dismissed the suit of complainant. Copy of the judgment and decree sheet of that suit is Ex Op-1 to 3/8 and 9 respectively. The complainant filed another suit against OPs and some other persons for mandatory injunction directing the defendants for removing the electric connection in dispute from the property in dispute. That suit was titled as Baljinder Kaur Vs Tirlochan Singh and its case number was RT-715/4.01.2013 and it was decided on 3.12.2014 by the court of Smt Gurjit Kaur Dhillon, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Moga. The ld Civil Judge, Moga dismissed the suit of complainant after going through the evidence and arguments led by parties. The copy of judgment and decree sheet of this suit is Ex OP-1 to 3/6 and Ex.OP-1 to 3/7 respectively.  Both these suits are filed by complainant against OPs regarding same subject matter and cause of action for removing the electric connection installed in the name of Tirlochan Singh/OP-4. In these suits, the proper opportunity was given to both the parties and witnesses were examined and cross examined by the parties.  These suits were decided by ld court after careful perusal of evidence and record available on file. Moreover, the complainant filed an appeal against the judgment dated 3.12.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr Division) in case no. RT-715/4.01.2013 titled as Baljinder Kaur Vs Tirlochan Singh in which the complainant sought directions from the court against OPs for removing the electric meter in the name of OP-4 before the court of District Judge, Moga, which is still pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Moga. Copy of grounds of appeal is Ex Op-4/5. Now, complainant has filed the present complaint again on same cause of action for directing OPs to remove the electric meter installed in the name of OP-4.

14.              From the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere in the orders passed by the Civil Court on same subject matter. Moreover, the appeal against the order of Civil Court is still pending. Complainant cannot be allowed to file cases again and again before different Courts/Forums on same subject matter and same cause of action  when she did not get decision in her favour from one Forum or court and to file the same case before another Forum. It is settled principle of law that when a matter is decided by one court on merits, then, it can not be re-agitated before another court on same cause of action. Therefore, in these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.  However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there is no order as to the costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:02.08.2016.

 

 

                              (Bhupinder Kaur)         (Vinod Bala)         (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                   Member                       Member               President