| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 264 of 01-10-2018 Decided on : 30-04-2019 Jaswant Singh aged about 30 years S/o Atma Singh R/o Village Bajak, Tehsil & District Bathinda. …...Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala (Formerly known as Punjab State Electricity Board). Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Distribution Division, Badal, Tehsil Lambi District Sri Mukatsar Sahib.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President Smt. Manisha Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Sh. J P S Brar, Advocate. O R D E R M. P. Singh Pahwa, President Jaswant Singh, complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., & another (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is farmer and co-sharer in land measuring 177 Kanals 01 Marla. He is in cultivating possession of specific Khasra No. 880. His family members depend on his income from the agriculture produce. One tubwell connection No. Y-14 AP-02/0053 is running in his name. This connection was issued by opposite party No. 2 under the supervision of opposite party No.1. The said connection is running in Khasra No.880 which is in cultivating possession of complainant. It is revealed that this connection was previously in the name of Dalip Kaur, mother of complainant. She voluntarily and with her free will gave one affidavit dated 18-11-2013 in his favour and transferred the said tube-well connection in favour of the complainant. Thereafter complainant applied with opposite party No.2 for transfer of connection on dated 19-10-2016. The opposite party No.2 got deposited necessary transfer fee and after completing all the formalities, transferred the said connection in the name of complainant and issued passbook in his favour. Now complainant wants to shift the said tube-well connection according to the need of irrigation to his land. He applied with opposite party 2 and offered to deposit necessary shifting fee and to complete other formalities. The opposite party No. 2 issued letter to the complainant and asked him for reply because his mother Dalip Kaur leveled allegation against him that he fraudulently got her affidavit for transfer of tube-well connection and she transferred the land of her share, in the name of his son Harmander Singh in the year 2005. The complainant replied to the letter and furnished detailed facts. Dalip Kaur is presently residing with Ajaib Singh and Harmander Singh, brothers of the complainant. The complainant is having dispute with them. Due to grudge, she filed application against complainant after five years from furnishing affidavit regarding transfer of tube-well connection. Land transferred by Dalip Kaur in favour of Harmander Singh is in joint khata. No specific khasra number was transferred. The land is still joint with the complainant and his brothers. Therefore, the application of Dalip Kaur is false one. The complainant again approached opposite party No. 2 and filed written application and requested to shift his tube-well connection but opposite party No.2 deliberately did not consider his request. It is alleged that opposite party No. 2 got managed wrong and illegal report on the application of the complainant that he wants to get shifted his tube-well connection regarding which his mother raised objection and court case is pending. After taking legal opinion from legal advisor, the opposite party No.2 will consider his case. It is alleged that the report of opposite party No. 2 is totally, wrong and illegal. The opposite party No. No.2 has got no legal right to raise any kind of such objection for shifting the tube-well connection on the basis of false application of any person. Moreover after getting transferred tube-well connection, complainant has become full fledged owner of tube-well connection. No third person can raise objection. The civil court has not granted any stay against shifting of tubewell connection. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. It is also pleaded that due to this act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering great mental tension, botheration, Harassment, humiliation and financial loss. For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.00 Lac for damages/loss of crops. Hence this complaint for recovery of these amounts and direction to the opposite parties to shift the tubewell connection. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In their joint written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that matter in question is sub-judiced. The same matter is pending before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, wherein Dalip Kaur, mother of complainant has levelled charges of misrepresentation and has stated that Jaswant Singh has got transferred the connection in question in his name by way of getting an affidavit by misleading. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that as per record connection in question is running in the name of complainant. The complainant applied for shifting of connection but the same cannot be transferred till the matter is sub-judice and pending before civil court. Moving an application by the complainant is admitted. After controverting all other averments, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 1-10-2018 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of affidavit dated 18-11-2013 of Dalip Kaur (Ex. C-2), photocopy of passbook (Ex. C-3), photocopy of receipt (Ex. C-4), photocopy of letters (Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-8), copy of legal notice (Ex.C-9) and postal receipts (Ex. C-10 to Ex.C-12). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence photocopy of plaint dated 14-8-2018 (Ex. OP-1/1). No further document was tendered by the opposite parties. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that admittedly complainant is the owner of connection in question as it was transferred in his name by previous owner Dalip Kaur after completing all the formalities. Therefore, now the complainant is entitled to get it shifted to any other land after completing formalities and payment of requisite charges. The complainant is ready to pay requisite charges and to complete the formalities but the opposite parties are not accepting this request of the complainant. The opposite parties are trying to avoid their liability on the plea that civil suit is pending before civil court. Of course, now civil court has passed order dated 25-2-2019 whereby the opposite parties were restrained from shifting the connection to any other site but on the date of filing of complaint, there was no stay by any civil court. Therefore, this Forum has to see right of the complainant on the date of filing of complaint. The subsequent events are not to be looked into. Even otherwise this Forum can direct the opposite parties to shift the connection when the stay is vacated. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties stands proved. Therefore, complaint be accepted. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that it is not disputed tath previously Dalip Kaur was the original owner of the connection in question. Of course the complainant got the connection transferred from Dalip Kaur but subsequently Dalip Kaur has moved an application whereby she has stated that her affidavit was taken by mis-representation. The complainant himself has placed on record copy of letter (Ex. C-8) whereby it was reported that Dalip Kaur has raised objection for shifting of connection on the ground that civil suit is pending. Therefore, it is not a case where opposite parties are intentionally delaying the matter. The matter was pending only due to court case pending between the parties. Now the civil court has granted stay and restrained the opposite parties for shifting the connection. As such, the complaint has become infructuous. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions. Admittedly originally connection in question was in the name of Dalip Kaur, mother of complainant. Of course, complainant got transferred the connection from his mother in the record of the opposite parties. Now, the prayer of the complainant is for shifting of connection to some other land. The complainant himself has placed on record copy of application dated 31-7-2018 (Ex. C-6) whereby opposite parties have intimated the complainant that his mother Dalip Kaur has moved application and revealed that she has transferred her land in favour of her other son Harmander Singh. It was intimated to the complainant that land where connection is operating is in the name of his brother Harminder Singh and complainant was asked to submit his version. Complainant replied to the letter but there is another letter (Ex. C-8) whereby complainant was intimated that his mother Dalip Kaur has raised objection and has revealed that civil suit is pending. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has also produced on record copy of order dated 28-2-2019 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda. The complainant has also admitted passing of this order. This order is on the basis of suit filed by Dalip Kaur against opposite parties and complainant Jaswant Singh. Vide this order, the opposite parties have been restrained from shifting tubewell connection from exiting site to anywhere till further orders. It is admitted that matter is already pending before civil court regarding same connection whereby complainant is also party. Keeping in view the pendency of civil suit and stay order passed by civil court, this Forum is of the opinion that the opposite parties cannot be directed to shift the connection in question to any other place. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. Announced : 30-04-2019 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President (Manisha) Member
| |
