BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, MOGA.

                                                                       Complaint No. 147 of 2014

                                                                   Instituted On:02.12.2014

                                                                  Decided On: 02.03.2015

1.       Ranjit Singh son of Harcharan Singh @Harchand Singh, resident of Village Ghal Kalan Tehsil and District Moga.

2.       Harcharan Singh alias Harchand Singh resident of Village Ghal Kalan District Moga.  

Complainants

Versus

1.       Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Station Dagru District Moga.

2.       Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Moga.

3.       Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala.

………Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

        Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Coram:       Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                   Smt Vinod Bala, Member

         Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Present:       Sh Ranjit Singh Adv. Cl. for the complainant  

                    Sh S.K.Dhir Adv. Cl. for the opposite parties

C.C.No. 147 of 2014                          //2//

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Station Dagru, District Moga & others (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties)-Ops directing them to change connection No.GK.361 and SL 3127  in the name of complainant No.1 from the name of complainant No.2 and also to shift connection No.GK361 from Khasra No.84/8 to Khasra No.166/18/2-23 of the land situated at Ghal Kalan District Moga, to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as  compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and also to grant any other relief to which this Forum may deem proper.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that two electric motor tubewell connections bearing account Nos. GK 361 and SL3 127 were in the name of Harcharan Singh complainant No.2, who was the father of complainant No.1. Out of two connections, one connection was running at Village Ghal Kalan, whereas, second connection was running at Village Salina, Tehsil and District Moga. After family settlement, complainant No.1 approached the opposite parties and requested them to transfer the above said electric motor connections from the name of his father to his name. In this regard, he has also submitted all required documents with the opposite parties and deposited the requisite fee as per rules of the opposite parties for the change

C.C.No. 147 of 2014                          //3//

of the name. Thereafter, the complainants approached the opposite parties many a times to transfer the above said connections from the name of his father to his name. But the opposite parties did not do so even then after the expiry of 1 ½ years. Thereafter, the father of complainant No.1 came to know that some demand notice for second test report was issued to complainant No.1, which was not received by him.  It has been further alleged that as per rules, there is no need to issue any demand notice for the change of name. Complainants further alleged that the bore of electric motor connection bearing account No. GK361 was not working properly. They approached the opposite parties and applied for shifting of above said electric motor connection from khasra No.84/8 to khasra No.166/18/2,23. In this regard, complainant No.1 submitted affidavits. But the opposite parties did not shift the electric motor connection from khasra No.84/8 to khasra No.166/18/2,23 on the ground that the affidavits submitted by the complainants were not attested by the appropriate authority, though the affidavits were attested by the notary public. Non shifting of the electric motor connection from the land of khasra No.84/8 to khasra No.166/18/2,23 and not changing the name of electric motor connections from the name of his father to his name, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.  

3..               Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who  have appeared through their counsel namely Sh. S.K.Dhir Advocate and filed joint written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary

C.C.No. 147 of 2014                          //4//

objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as there were two electric tubewell motor connections bearing account No.GK-361 of 20 BHP ( New account No.AP 14/361) and bearing account No.SL-3/12 of 20 BHP (New No.AP 25-127) respectively in the name of complainant No.2; that the complainant No.1 applied for the transfer of these electric motor connections from the name of his father to his name by depositing Rs.4,000/- with the opposite parties on 17.04.2012.  In this regard, complainants submitted applications alongwith affidavits duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, Moga to the opposite parties. The opposite parties issued demand notice No.3438 and 3439 dated 29.04.2012 vide which complainant No.1 was asked to submit test reports in duplicate. But the complainant did not comply with the above said notices. Thereafter on 15.10.2013, complainant moved an application pleading therein that he did not receive any notice, therefore, duplicate demand notice be issued. On the application of the complainant No.1, the demand notice again issued to the complainant on 15.10.2013. Even then the complainant has not complied with the demand notices till date and has not submitted test report. So the opposite parties could not change the electric motor connections from the name of his father to complainant No.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost has been made.

4.                In order to prove their case, the learned counsel for the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant No.1 Ex.C-1

C.C.No. 147 of 2014                          //5//

and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10 and closed their evidence.

5.                To rebut the evidence of the complainants, opposite party     Nos. 1 to 3  tendered affidavit Ex.OP1to3/1 of Chunish Jain SDO, PSPCL,  copies of documents Ex.O.P.1to3/2 to Ex.O.P 1to 3/16  and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

7.                The learned counsel for the complainants has vehemently contended that there is no denying the fact that two A.P. motors connections bearing Nos. GK 361 and SL3 127 were running in the name of complainant No.2 i.e. the father of complainant No.1 in the area of Village Ghal Kalan and Salina respectively. Complainant No.1 moved an application, copy whereof is Ex.C-4 for getting the connections transferred in his name. But, however, despite complying with all the necessary conditions for transferring the electric connections, the opposite parties did not change the electric connections in dispute in favour of complainant No.1. The learned counsel for the complainants further contended that the bore of electric motor connection bearing account No. GK361 was not working properly. They approached the opposite parties and also applied for shifting of above said electric motor connection from khasra No.84/8 to khasra No.166/18/2,23. Only excuse, which was given for not transferring the connections in the name of complainant No.1 has been that no test reports have been submitted by complainant No.1 despite issuing notice in

C.C.No. 147 of 2014                          //6//

that regard. But, since the electric connections in dispute were already running in the name of father of complainant No.1, therefore, there was absolutely no need for submitting any test report. The reason for declining the request of complainant No.1 is without any valid cause or reason, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

8.                But, however, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently contended that although demand notice has been issued by the opposite parties, requisitioning complainant No.1 to comply with the same by submitting test reports, yet complainant No.1 for the reasons best known to him has failed to comply with the requirement of the Department for getting the electric connections transferred in his name. It is contended that request of complainant No.1 has been declined due to valid reason. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The instant complaint is nothing, but an abuse of process of law and it is contended that the complaint is liable to dismissed.

9.                 We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.

10.               There is no dispute that both the electric connections in dispute mentioned above, were standing in the name of complainant No.2 i.e. father of complainant No.1. It is also not disputed that complainant No.1 applied for transferring of both the electric connections in his name after complying with the requisite formalities. Complainant No.2 has already given his consent in writing for getting the electric connections transferred in the name of complainant No.1. However, the opposite parties

C.C.No. 147 of 2014                          //7//

did not transfer the connections in the name of complainant No.1 on lame excuse that complainant No.1 has not submitted requisite test reports for complying with the terms and conditions of the opposite parties. But, however, the opposite parties did not refer to any of the regulation or notification of Power com. for reaching the conclusion that there was any such condition for getting a running connection transferred in the name of some other person. It was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have referred to such regulation or notification of the Power com. for declining the request of complainant No.1 for transferring the electric connections in dispute in his name, particularly, when original consumer has consented to the transfer of electric connections in the name of complainant No.1. However, shifting of electric connection No.GK361 from Khasra No.84/8 to Khasra No.166/18/2-23 can be considered by the opposite parties only when complainant No.1 submits test report to the satisfaction of the opposite parties. Since no such test report has been submitted, therefore, the relief pertaining to that part has been rightly declined. Since all the other requisite conditions have been complied with by complainant No.1 for getting the electric connection(s) transferred in his name, there is absolutely no reason with the opposite parties to have declined his request. The act and conduct of the opposite parties, amounts to deficiency in service. Instant complaint succeeds and the opposite parties are directed to transfer the electric connections bearing account Nos. GK 361 and SL3 127, respectively in the name of complainant No.1 within a period of thirty

C.C.No. 147 of 2014                          //8//

days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:02.03.2015.