THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 443 of 2018
Date of Institution: 20.6.2018
Date of Decision: 4.2.2019
Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Kishan Chand Inside Mission Compound, Near Nanda Steel Factory, Queens Road, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its SE (City Centre) Municipal Power House, O/s Hall Gate, Amritsar
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party: Mrs.Monika Khanna, Advocate
Coram
Sh.Charanjit Singh, President
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member.
Order dictated by:
Sh.Charanjit Singh, President
1. Suresh Kumar, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is running very small automobile workshop for earning his livelihood with the help of two three casual workers at a rented premises wherein an electric connection bearing account No. C16LR280624M was installed. The said premises is with complainant since the year 1985 and the latest receipt of rend dated 15.2.2018 is Ex.C-2 on record. All the electric bills served upon the complainants have been duly paid and no amount is outstanding against the said connection. Earlier the electric connection mentioned above was in the name of some fictitious name due to clerical mistake of the opposite party but the said name stood corrected in the name of the complainant by the opposite party with due consent of landlords of the premises . Accordingly requisite free for the same was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party on 4.7.2017 copy of which is Ex.C-3 and copy of consent of landlords in favour of the complainant is Ex.C-4, copy of corrected bill dated 15.1.2018 is Ex.C-5 on record. After correction of name of complainant in the records of the opposite party, complainant received memo No. 3951 dated 22.5.2018 from AEE Commercial to explain how name was corrected in the records of the opposite party, copy of which is Ex.C-6 on record. The said letter was duly replied by the complainant vide letter dated 29.5.2018, copy of which is Ex.C-7. Infact opposite party is working on the directions of one Madan Lal and Raju Mehta, who are having dispute with the complainant and a civil suit against both the persons has already been filed . The said act of the opposite party of threatening the complainant to change name of electric connection of the complainant arbitrarily after the same was corrected from wrong name to the name of complainant and after receiving requisite fee for the same is gross deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of harassment and tension to the complainant. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
a) Opposite Party be directed not to change the name of complainant to any other name ;
b) Opposite Party be also directed to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant.
c) Opposite Party be also directed to pay costs of complaint, as well as counsel fee of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant.
d) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to under the law and equity, may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement in which it was denied that complainant is running independent business of small automobile workshop for his livelihood but shop for the last so many years is being used as business place for the firm M/s. Surinder Kumar Madan. It was denied that shop where the business is run is a rental premises on the basis of rent note . However, as per record of opposite party electric connection bearing No. C-16LR/28/0624M of 3 KW was existing in the name of Surinder Kumar Madan, 27 Queens Road, Amritsar and that account is still running. It was denied that said premises I/s Mission Compound Near Nanda Steel Factory is with complainant since 1985. However, it was admitted that ADTA is the owner. For landlord and tenant relationship between ADTA and the complainant or firm Surinder Kuma Madan the complainant is put to strict proof thereof. The receipt dated 15.2.2018 allegedly issued by General Power of attorney holder in the name of Sh.Suresh Kumar for Rs. 900/- is false and fabricated one because as per record of the opposite party consumption of electricity is made by firm M/s. Surinder Kumar Madan and none else. It is a matter of record that whether all the electricity dues have been paid for the aforesaid electric connection or not. It was denied that earlier connection mentioned above was in the name of some fictitious persons due to some clerical mistake of opposite party. However, it is worthwhile to mention here that correct name already existing has been tried to be got wrongly changed in the name of Sh.Suresh Kumar in connivance with the landlord of the premises . It was a matter of record that fee for the same was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party on 4.7.2017 for Rs. 1150/-. It was denied that consent letter was given by the landlord in favour of the complainant . It is a matter of record that bill dated 15.1.2018 was issued with the complainant’s name. All has been got done by the complainant by misrepresentative of facts in the office of opposite party where he tried to change his identity by change of name and further tried to delete the name of other account holder Sh. Madan to create proof of his sole possession. It was denied that right correction of name of complainant was made in the record of the opposite party after examining the record and verifying the documents. It was admitted that complainant received memo No. 3951 dated 22.5.2018 for explaining as to how the name was corrected in the record of the opposite party. The true facts are that one Sh.Surinder Kumar Madan was holding electric connection since long time back in their name from PSPCL of 3 KW bearing account No. C16 LR28/0634M. In the year 2017 one Sh.Suresh Kumar applied for his change of name from Surinder Kumar Madan to Suresh Kumar and for that he filled A & A form for change of name and deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 1150/- on 4.7.2017. He also filed a certificate of ADTA Mission under the signatures of General Power of Attorney holder Sh. Deepak Kumar stating therein that Sh.Suresh Kumar is a tenant of ADTA since 18.8.1985 and also filed his self declaration that ADTA Trust is the owner of the property where the electric connection is installed . Finally the correction was made on the request of Sh. Suresh Kumar. One Sh.Raju Mehta son of Sh. Madan Lal meanwhile moved an application under right to information Act for getting information from AEE commercial demanding documents from PSPCL on the basis of which change of name of Surinder Kumart Madan to Suresh Kumar has been made. In response to this letter the opposite party wrote letter dated 23.4.2018 asking the complainant to visit the office of the opposite party in context with the matter in hand but Sh.Suresh Kumar wrote letter dated 3.5.2018 directing the opposite party not to give all the documents demanded from the department but according to law the opposite party was to supply those particulars to sh. Raju Mehta but the department failed. Against that act of the opposite party Sh. Raju Mehta filed an appeal before the Chief Engineer Operations, Border Zone, Amritsar against the non supply of particulars and Sh. Raju Mehta also stated that he has no objection if name of account holder is written as Suresh Kumar Madan Lal. But the name of Sh. Madan Lal should not be deleted from the record of opposite party. Further he wrote a letter on 29.5.2018 to Grievances Cell, Patiala to change the electricity account name to its original name and in appeal on behalf of opposite party SDO Sh. Aman Kuma alongwith RA Sh.Amrit Pal Singh went to Chief Engineer office for appeal of Sh. Raju Mehta and as per the assurances given by the department through SDO commercial Sh.Raju Mehta withdrew RTI appeal . But the department kept on working on the matter and issued a notice dated 22.5.2018 to the complainant to appear in the matter of change of name if he does not appear within 7 days name will be changed automatically. The notice was sent by post and after receiving the notice complainant refused to sign the same. Further notice No. 4097 dated 11.6.2018 was lastly issued . But the complainant did not turn up in 7 days and came up on 25.6.2018. In between a letter was written by Sh. Raju Mehta on 14.6.2018 that matter is pending in police station and he demanded copy of notice from the department. But the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum. It was submitted that name has already been changed in the record of PSPCL from Suresh Kumar to Surinder Kumar Madan as per developments in Appellate court so the question of threat does not arise as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Alongwith written version opposite party filed affidavit of Sh. Amit Deepak, AEE Commercial and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP35.
3. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
4. From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was the case of the complainant that he has been residing in the premises where electric connection bearing account No.C16LR280624M has been installed , since the year 1985 and the latest receipt of rend dated 15.2.2018 is Ex.C-2 on record. It has been contended that complainant has been making payment of all the electric bills regularly and no amount is outstanding against the said connection. Earlier the electric connection mentioned above was in the name of some fictitious name due to clerical mistake of the opposite party but the said name stood corrected in the name of the complainant by the opposite party with due consent of landlords of the premises . Accordingly requisite free for the same was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party on 4.7.2017 copy of which is Ex.C-3 and copy of consent of landlords in favour of the complainant is Ex.C-4, copy of corrected bill dated 15.1.2018 is Ex.C-5 on record. After correction of name of complainant in the records of the opposite party, complainant received memo No. 3951 dated 22.5.2018 from AEE Commercial to explain how name was corrected in the records of the opposite party, copy of which is Ex.C-6 on record. On the other hand the only plea of the opposite party that one Sh.Surinder Kumar Madan was holding electric connection since long time back in their name from PSPCL of 3 KW bearing account No. C16 LR28/0634M. However, in the year 2017 one Sh.Suresh Kumar applied for his change of name from Surinder Kumar Madan to Suresh Kumar and for that he filled A & A form for change of name and deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 1150/- on 4.7.2017. He also filed a certificate of ADTA Mission under the signatures of General Power of Attorney holder Sh. Deepak Kumar stating therein that Sh.Suresh Kumar is a tenant of ADTA since 18.8.1985 and also filed his self declaration that ADTA Trust is the owner of the property where the electric connection is installed . Finally the correction was made on the request of Sh. Suresh Kumar. However, one Sh.Raju Mehta son of Sh. Madan Lal meanwhile moved an application under right to information Act for getting information from AEE commercial demanding documents from PSPCL on the basis of which change of name of Surinder Kumart Madan to Suresh Kumar has been made. In response to this letter the opposite party wrote letter dated 23.4.2018 asking the complainant to visit the office of the opposite party in context with the matter in hand .But the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum. It was submitted that name has already been changed in the record of PSPCL from Suresh Kumar to Surinder Kumar Madan as per developments in Appellate court so the question of threat does not arise as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
5. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that no doubt opposite party after receipt of requisite charges from the complainant has changed the electric connection in the name of the complainant. However, due to some dispute regarding change of electric connection in the name of the complainant, the opposite party issued memo No. 3951 dated 22.5.2018 to explain how name was corrected in the records of the opposite party . No doubt the correction was got made by the complainant from the opposite party after payment of requisite charges, but the complainant has failed to explain how he can get changed the electric connection in his name when the same was running in some other name Surinder Kumar Madan which shows that something wrong is done while getting change the electric connection in the name of the complainant from the opposite party.. In the case in hand extremely complicated questions of facts and law are involved, as has been discussed in an elaborate manner in the preceding paragraphs, as such the parties are required to take their dispute to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction where the parties can lead elaborate oral and documentary evidence and where they will get an opportunity to examine their witnesses and cross examine the witnesses of the other party in order to elicit the truth. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
6. The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
7. As such, instant complaint is relegated to the Civil Court for deciding the matter in accordance with law. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
