Complainant Sukhdev Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to restore his electricity tubewell connection no.17/393 of 5 B.H.P.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the holder of the electric tubewell connection no.17/393 of 5 B.H.P. and the same is installed in his agricultural land which is the only source of irrigation of the agricultural land. Originally the electric tubewell connection was in the name of his father Sh.Nihal Singh who had died on 2.07.1997. It was installed before his father’s death. He stepped into the shoes of his father. Moreover his father during his life time had executed a registered Gift deed in his favour regarding his agricultural land and electricity tubewell connection. He used to pay the electricity bills to the opposite parties regularly. He has further pleaded that he involved in murder case and F.I.R. no.65 was registered against him and his family members in the year 2002 at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur. Since then he is in Jail. The Session Court Gurdaspur convicted him on 10.03.2004 for life imprisonment. Firstly the Punjab Government exempted the electricity bills of the tube-wells of the farmers. For some period the Punjab Government withdrew the exemption of the electricity bills and re-imposed the bill on agricultural tube-wells of the farmers. Again the Punjab Government exempted the electricity bills of the agricultural tube wells and no electricity bills of the tube wells are being charged from the farmers. Due to his detention in jail in murder case, he could not pay the electricity bills to the opposite parties for the period i.e. re-imposition of electricity bills. He came on parole from the jail on 2.9.2014 for 42 days and came to know that his electricity connection of the tubewell has been disconnected by the opposite parties due to non payment of the arrears of bill of some months. He approached the opposite parties and requested them to restore his connection as he is ready to pay the arrears of bill or any other due if any. He also requested the opposite party no.1 to provide him details of arrears of bill/rent but the opposite parties flatly refused to restore the electricity connection. The opposite parties were fully aware that he is in jail from 2002 to onwards. So he is unable to pay the bills. No notice was ever served upon him or his family members before disconnecting the electricity connection of his tubewell. This act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the complaint is hopelessly time barred. On merits, it was submitted that the connection which was in the name of Nihal Singh and the privity of contract and agreement was with him but due to non payment of the electricity dues and its arrears the connection has been disconnected long back in the year 2003 and thus the complaint is not maintainable. It has been further submitted that the opposite party was not aware of death of Nihal Singh neither any of his LR’s had approached nor any representations was made with regard to the connection AP 17/393 in the name of Nihal Singh and as such after disconnection and non payment of dues there is no agreement subsisting with the opposite party. The complaint is uncalled and time barred and thus not maintainable. Disconnected connection could have been restored within one year of the disconnection i.e. from year 2003 and now the connection as per provisions and rules cannot be restored. It has been next submitted that all the connection holder are liable to pay the arrears of electricity dues payable by them pertaining to the tubewell connections in their name and said relaxation/exemption if any can only be obtained by clearing the earlier dues against the account there and but not after such a long in ordinary delay as long delay destroys remedy. The connection in question cannot be restored as no one has approached since death of Nihal Singh in the year 1997 and even after disconnection in the year 2003. Moreover the complainant was involved in the case in year 2002 and his father had died in the year 1997. Thus the complaint is time barred and uncalled. It has been next submitted that complainant prior to the present complaint had earlier filed a complaint in the year 06-10-2006 and the same was decided on 31.8.2008 and got one connection 17/407 which was also in the name of his father Nihal Singh vide order of this Ld.Forum titled as Sukhdev Singh Vs. PSPCL and as such the present complaint is not maintainable. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
- Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Amardeep Singh Nagra S.D.O. of the opposite parties has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 along with other document Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the litigants, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the complainant here had complained against the OP Corporation’s refusal to ‘restore’ the Tube Well Connection # 17/393 that was permanently disconnected in the Year 2003 (01.09.2003) on account of ‘non-payment’ of the consumption bills. The OPs have based its ‘refusal’ on clause 39.4 of the Sales Regulations, Electricity Supply Instructions Manual of the Corporation that provides for ‘reconnection’ but within One Year of the ‘disconnection’ on permanent basis. The complainant explains that ‘delay’ was caused on account of his getting an award of ‘life-imprisonment’ in the Year 2002 and he applied for ‘reconnection’ in the Year 2014 while being on parole. However, the OP rebuts that the complainant while on an earlier parole in the year 2006 had filed complaint # 601/2006 for restoration of another connection # 17/407 and that was duly awarded in his favor on 31.08.2008; the power connection was duly issued and presently the complainant had filed restoration of some other connection 17/397 that was never issued in the name of his deceased father Nihal Singh and even the filed documents were all fake. The complainant somehow could not produce ‘original documents for verification etc.
7. In the light of the all above, we find that the present complaint involves some serious and complicated questions of fact and law and adjudication of which shall involve complete examinations/lengthy cross-examinations etc of the witnesses that shall not be feasible under the ‘summary’ procedure as prescribed under the Act. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the present complainant to seek the herein prayed relief in the civil court of competent jurisdiction if he so desires and/ or is, so advised.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
October 23, 2015 Member
*MK*
