Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/42/2017

Surmukh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

In Person Sh Navneet Sareen

07 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No     :    42 of 2017

Date of Institution                          :    23.08.2017                   

Date of Decision                  :   07.05.2018

 

Surmukh Singh Son of S.Gian Singh Resident of Village Soeta Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.  9855244378

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Office Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar trough S.D.O. (Rural) Jadla, (SBS Nagar).
2. XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Garhshankar Road, Nawanshahr, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. 
3. Punjab State Power Co. Limited, through the Mall, Patiala

Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

S.A.P.S. RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant           :         Sh.Navneet Sareen, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh. P.K Dhir, Advocate

 

ORDER 

PER S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1. This complaint filed by complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Further, it is averred that complainant is permanent resident of aforesaid address and having electric connection bearing No.N42UF390049Y.  Complainant was allotted domestic connection.  Complainant is NRI and in his absence, the PSPCL has installed the electric poll in the street which going the house of complainant which is used as passage and the said land of passage is ownership of complainant.  Complainant has faced difficulty in coming and going from the street due to wrong installation of electric pillar  by OPs.  For removal of said electric pillar and meter box, complainant was requested the OPs and upon which complainant has deposited Rs.9087/- vide receipt No.138 dated 14.05.2014.  Complainant has requested many times for solution but all in vain.  Complainant has also moved written request dated 03.08.2018 to XEN, Nawanshahr but no solution received.  After preparing estimate as per rules of OPs and despite receiving required fee the problem was not solved.  Lastly it is prayed that action be taken as per Consumer Protection Act for unnecessarily harassment caused to complainant upon the act and conduct of OPs and it may be ordered that grievance of complainant be redressed and electric pillar alongwith meter box be removed from the street of complainant and Rs.20,000/- claimed as compensation.   
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and  accordingly OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that this complaint is not maintainable.  On merits, it is submitted that electricity pole and wire has been already installed in the main road from last many years to give the electricity supply to the villagers.  But the meter box was installed at the one side of Smt.Baldev Kaur.  It is admitted that complainant deposited Rs.9087/- with OP-1 but Smt.Baldev Kaur given an objection to OP-1 that pillar was not installed in the front of her house which has been already installed one side of her house.  Due to this reason the work was stopped and meter box could not removed near the house of complainant.  OP No.1 was already given notice dated 16.10.2014 to complainant and notice dated 08.09.2017 to Smt.Baldev Kaur demanded clarification/objection, why not the transfer and meter box from street desired by complainant.  It is also submitted that there is no any obstacle to the complainant to incoming and outgoing in the street and in the house.  The width of the disputed street about 15 feet and pucca bricks have been paved in the street by the Gram Panchayat and meter box has been installed below the bricks of Gram Panchayat.  OP No.1 demanded NOC from Baldev Kaur but she did not give the same.  The electric pole was removed from the street in the month of Sep.2017 but the meter box was not removed due to not given NOC by Baldev Kaur.  The intimation was given Hardev Singh attorney of complainant.  The shifting of electric pole has been regularized vide estimate No.7400053/17/18 and Rs.6458/- has been spent for the work and whenever the NOC will be given by Baldev Kaur, fresh revised estimate would be prepared and the intimation for the balance amount will be intimated to complainant. Lastly prayer has been made for dismissal of complainant.    
3. In order to prove complaint, attorney of complainant, tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
4. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for OPs tendered into evidence, affidavit of Parminder Kumar, AE Ex.OPA , then tendered photocopies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8, and then tendered city report Ex.OP-9, photos Ex.OP-10 to Ex.OP-11 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file very carefully.
6. During pendency of this complaint, one undated document placed on file on behalf of complainant vide which it is certified that which passage was going to house of Surmukh Singh s/o Gian Singh R/o Village Seota fallen under “Lal Lakeer” was ownership of Surmukh Singh.  Power Corporation was installed electric pole and meter box in the land owned by Surmukh Singh in his absence.  But now electric pole was shifted from there but meter box still installed there, if the said meter box to be shifted to other place of Gram Panchayat, then Gram Panchahat has no objection for the same. 
7. On the other hand, Sh.Parminder, SDO Power com, Jadla submitted that he personally contact with Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Village Soeta.  Sarpanch Smt.Gurmit Kaur Village Soeta told that she has no knowledge about NOC.  She send her representative Sh.Satnam Singh with him.  He personally visited the site in the presence of Sh.Hardev Singh holder of power attorney of Sh.Surmukh Singh, representative of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Village Soeta (Sh.Satnam Singh) and consumers consuming supply from pillar box.  He also filed   one document mentioning date 10.04.2018 has been placed on record vide which, spot checking was got done in the presence of villagers and Namberdar with regard to this complaint and in presence of consumers who obtaining electric supply from the said pole.  It was observed that in which street the pillar was fixed, there was bricks of Panchayat so this street is of Gram Panchayat Soeta and the street is not the personal property of Surmukh Singh.  Where the meter box was installed that land is ownership of Baldev Kaur W/o Late Jasveer Singh.  There is no brick of Panchayat.  This family and residents of village has no objection.  There is no common place and suitable location of the Panchayat for shifting of meter box.

Accordingly, after hearing the  learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we are of the view that in the present complaint there are complicated questions of facts are involved which requires elaborated evidence for adjudication of the same.  One side Ex.OP-7 dated 18.09.2014 and document dated 10.04.2018 signed by Nambardar and Villagers of Village Soeta claims that the ownership where meter box installed is the property of Baldev Kaur.  On the other hand, complainant claims himself that he is owner of the land where the meter box is installed. 

We are of the opinion that the present case cannot be adjudicated upon in a summary manner. The Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in case of Savitri Devi Vs Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport,2015(3) CLT 415(PB) has observed  that “ where the matter cannot be  adjudicated without recording elaborate evidence involving cross-examination of witnesses, the complainant be directed to approach competent civil court to seek redressal of her grievance”.

We may further in this case refer to a decision of three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) , in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed where complicated questions of law and facts are involved Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. We feel in the present case also there are complicated questions of facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Forum. 

8. Accordingly, in view of our aforementioned discussion and the judgments, we are of the view that in the present case also elaborate evidence involving cross-examination of witnesses is required for proper adjudication to prove, whether the certificate is genuine or forged one. Thus we would not like to go into the merits of the case. Hence the present complaint is disposed of with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate Court of law, in case parties wishes to prove or lead voluminous evidence and may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)  for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. Parties to bear their cost.  
9. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.
11. File be indexed and consigned to record. 

Dated 07.05.2018                                                         

 

                                                               

  (Kanwaljeet Singh)             (A.P.S. Rajput)

  Member                                  President