Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/93

Balvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sodhi Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Kumar Chauhan

19 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.93 of 2012

 

                                                Date of Institution:  25.01.2012.

                             Date of Decision    :19.02.2015.

 

Balvir Singh son of Sh. Gurdev Singh resident of village Jaitpur, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

                                                          …..Appellant

Versus

 

1.       Sodhi Singh son of Desa Singh, resident of village Jaitpur, Tehsil        Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

                                                              .….Respondent No.1/complainant

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office The Mall   Road Hoshiarpur, through its Chairman.

3.       Senior Xen Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Mahilpur    Division, Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur.

                                           .….Respondent No.2 &3/opposite parties

    

Appeal against order dated 03.02.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.

 

Quorum:-

 

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.   

Present:-

 

     For the appellant                       :     Sh. R.K. Chauhan, Advocate

For the respondent No.1            :     None

For the respondent Nos.2 &3     :     Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate

   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                    The appellant (none of the party in the complaint) has preferred this appeal against the respondents of this appeal herein (respondent no.1 is the complainant, respondent no.2 & 3 are the opposite party no.1 & 2 in the complaint) assailing order dated 03.02.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Hoshiarpur (in short, “the District Forum”), vide which, the complaint of the complainant (respondent no.1) was accepted against OPs (respondent no.2 and 3 in this appeal).

2.           The complainant Sodhi Singh has filed the complaint against the OPs through its Chairman and XEN under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short "Act") on the averments that his father Desa Singh was owner in possession of the land, as detailed in Para no.1 of the complaint, situated at Village Jaitpur Tehsil Garhshankar District Hoshiarpur. That Desa Singh since deceased obtained electricity tubewell connection no.AP30/332 in his name from the OPs under the rules. That above Desa Singh since deceased had been using the electricity connection by making the payment of the consumption charges during his life time, as such he had been the consumer of OPs of 7.5 BHP of tubewell. There were other co-sharers along with said Desa Singh in the land, but none had objected to the user of the said electric connection to irrigate his land in his possession. That Desa Singh expired on 09.09.1987 and was survived his sons Sodhi Singh complainant, Jasbir Singh and Balihar Singh his other sons, who have inherited his property including electricity connection of 7.5 BHP in this case, on the basis of natural succession. Jasbir Singh, the brother of complainant, transferred his share in the electricity in question in the name of complainant Sodhi Singh. That the electricity connection in question has to be transferred in the name of legal heirs of Desa Singh, after his death, subject to furnishing no objection certificate from other legal heirs and the consent of other co-sharers, who were not legal heirs of Desa Singh was not required at all. That complainant applied to the OPs in application form CSI after the death of his father for transfer of electricity connection in his name coupled with affidavit and other requisite documents, which was registered vide no.15032/AP dated 20.10.2010. The OPs issued letter/CSS form no.997 dated 28.10.2010 to the complainant requiring him to complete certain formalities like test report etc. That OPs are bound to transfer the electricity connection in the name of complainant on receipt of the requisite documents. The complainant received letter no.1929 dated 01.12.2010 from OPs. That Harbans Kaur and Balvir Singh, the other
   co-sharers in the land, who are not the legal heirs of Desa Singh, submitted an objection to the OPs regarding change of this electricity connection in the name of the complainant. The OPs thereby refused to transfer the said electricity connection in the name of complainant. That said Balvir Singh and Harbans Kaur were not the LRs of deceased Desa Singh and they were not concerned with the electricity connection of Desa Singh on account of being other co-sharers in the land. The complainant has, thus, pleaded in this complaint that letter of refusal no.1929 dated 01.12.2010 of the OPs is not justified and deserves to be quashed. The complainant has accordingly filed the complaint directing the OPs to transfer the electricity connection No.AP30/332 in the name of complainant from Desa Singh by setting aside letter/memo no.1929 dated 01.12.2010, besides praying compensation of Rs.50,000/- for his mental harassment.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. The OPs raised preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. That complicated question of facts and law are involved in this complaint, which cannot be decided in a summary manner by the Consumer Fora. That objection by other co-sharers dated 21.10.2010 was received in the office of OPs for not transferring the electricity connection in the name of complainant. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, in as much as, all LRs of Desa Singh have not been implemented in it. It was admitted that the said electricity connection was in the name of Desa Singh and Desa Singh had been consumer of the OPs. It was further contended in the reply that OPs are governed by Rules and Regulations and they have to avoid unnecessary litigation. That Harbans Kaur and Balvir Singh objected to transfer of the electricity connection, being co-sharers in the property, as a result of which, memo no.997 dated 28.10.2010 was issued by OPs to avoid unnecessary litigation. The OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint of the complainant.
4.           The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with documents Ex.C-2 to C-12 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Malkiat Singh AAE Ex. OP-1 along with documents OP-2 to OP-4 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Hoshiarpur accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 03.02.2011 against the OPs.  Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum Hoshiarpur, the instant appeal has been preferred against the same by Balvir Singh, who is none of the parties before the District Forum Hoshiarpur in the complaint.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2 & 3 as none appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and have also examined the record of the case. The submissions raised by the appellant Balvir Singh is that he is a co-sharer in the property and the electricity connection of Desa Singh cannot be transferred in the name of his son Sodhi Singh without his consent. The order of the District Forum has been assailed only on this ground by non party Balvir Singh before District Forum to the effect that he being a co-sharer has not been heard and he has objection to the transfer of the electricity connection in the name of Sodhi Singh complainant.
6.           We have examined the record of the case and heard the submissions of the appearing parties before us and none appeared for respondent no.1 Sodhi Singh at the time of arguments of the appeal. We proceed to adjudicate this matter in this appeal on the basis of obtaining evidence on the record. Admittedly, the electricity connection in question was in the name of Desa Singh deceased, the father of complainant Sodhi Singh. Desa Singh was the consumer of the OPs during his life time and he had been making the payments of the consumption charges to the OPs. There was, thus, relationship of consumer and service provider between the late Desa Singh and OPs in this case. The copy of Jamabandi Ex.C-2 is on the record. Balvir Singh, the appellant is recorded as one of the co-sharers with Nirmal Singh to the extent of 199 shares in the property in question. Mark C-3 is the copy of electricity bill in the name of Desa Singh. Mark.C-4 is the death certificate of Desa Singh, who expired on 09.09.1987. Mark C-5 is the transfer application of this electricity connection moved by Sodhi Singh complainant to the OPs, being son of Desa Singh. The affidavit of other legal heirs of Desa Singh, who were brother of Sodhi Singh, the complainant on the record. Vide affidavit Mark C-6 Jasbir Singh and Mark C-7 affidavit of Balhar Singh, the other legal heirs of Desa Singh, they have given their consent for the transfer of this electricity connection in the name of Sodhi Singh complainant. They have no objection in the transfer of this electricity in the name of complainant Sodhi Singh. Mark C-8 is the demand notice addressed to complainant, Mark C-9 is the test report submitted by the complainant to the OPs, Mark C-10 is the affidavit of complainant. Mark C-11 is the indemnity bond submitted by Sodhi Singh to the OPs, as placed on record.
7.           The only question that survives for adjudicating in this appeal before us, as to whether Balvir Singh, in whose name the electricity connection was not recorded, and he is not legal heir of Desa Singh, can raise the objection for the transfer of this electricity connection from the name of Desa Singh in the name of complainant Sodhi Singh, his son. Whereas the other legal heirs of Desa Singh have no objection to the transfer of this electricity connection in favour of their brother Sodhi Singh complainant. The counsel for the appellant referred to law laid down by Hon'ble High Court in Gopi Ram  versus  Shyam Sunder and others reported in 2006(2) RCR(Civil)-710 by our own High Court to the effect that where the property is joint, the tubewell becomes joint property. We find that this point can be adjudicated only by a regular Civil Court, where the question of title thereto has to be determined. We are invested with the summary powers to adjudicate the matter regarding any deficiency in service between the consumer and the service provider only. Admittedly, the consumer was Desa Singh of OPs service provider and after his death, Sodhi Singh his son has been making payment of consumption charged by using the electricity services of the OPs. We find that the District Forum correctly gave the direction to transfer the connection in the name of Sodhi Singh in this case, after death of Desa Singh his father, who was the consumer of OPs. With regard to determination of title in the electricity connection, the matter can be settled in the regular Civil Court only qua any interest of appellant Balvir Singh in the electricity connection in dispute. We find that Desa Singh admittedly has been proved to be the consumer in this case and after his death, his son Sodhi Singh complainant would become consumer of the OPs with the consent of other legal heirs of Desa Singh by way of transfer of electricity connection in his name. The OPs have simply to transfer the electricity connection in the record from the name of Desa Singh to the complainant Sodhi Singh, because Desa Singh has been proved to be their consumer. With regard to other title to the dispute qua Balvir Singh appellant, the matter can be got decided by the appellant Balvir Singh from the Civil Court only.
8.           As result of our above discussions, we find that Balvir Singh is not the legal heir of Desa Singh, who was the consumer of the OPs. Consequently, we find no illegality in the order of District Forum in this case in ordering transfer of the electricity connection in the name of Sodhi Singh complainant, when the other legal heirs of Desa Singh have no objection to it. The order of the District Forum is, thus, sustained in this appeal by us.
9.           For the reason recorded above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
10.           Arguments in this appeal were heard on 16.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

February  19, 2015.                                                                                   

(MM)