DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 597/2016
Date of Institution : 26.07.2016
Date of Decision : 23.02.2018
1. Bhinder Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh Santa Singh.
2. Jagroop Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh son of Santa Singh.
3. Manjit Kaur wife of Late Jagtar Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh.
4. Gagandeep Singh son of Jagtar Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh.
5. Amandeep Singh son of Jagtar Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh.
Residents of Village Upli, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainants
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Dhanaula-II through its Assistant Executive Officer.
2. X.E.N. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Dhanaula.
3. Additional Nigran Engineer, PSPCL, Dhanaula Road, Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986
Present: Sh. R.K. Bansal counsel for the complainants.
Sh. S.K. Kotia counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(MS. VANDNA SIDHU MEMBER)
As per complaint No. 697 of 2016 complainants are the legal heirs of Mukhtiar Singh son of Santa Singh who had executed a will dated 14.12.2000 in favour of his three sons namely Jagtar Singh-Bhinder Singh and Jagroop Singh. Jagtar Singh had died on 9.6.2016 so such his wife Manjit Kaur and sons Gagandeep Singh and Amandeep Singh have come forward to file this complaint. The complaint is filed for the benefit of all the legal heirs so all other legal heirs have not been impleaded as complainants.
2. The opposite parties had issued one Tubeweel connection under OYT Scheme bearing Account No. AP-25-628 and tubewell was installed in the fields owned and possessed by Mukhtiar Singh and after his death mutation was sanctioned in favour of his three sons vide will dated 14.12.2000. It is further submitted that, one Bahadur Singh son of Chand Singh resident of Village Uppali had filed a complaint that tubewell connection was running illegally. The officers of the opposite party conducted an inquiry and concluded that the said complaint was false. The opposite party disconnected the power connection to the tubewell of the complainants vide PDCO dated 26.3.2015 without any reason and notice to the complainants and without affording an opportunity of being heard. The connection was applied for 5 BHP and later on enhanced to 7.5 BHP and further enhanced to 10 BHP. It is further submitted that the connection is installed in Khasra No. 63//13 and 17. Khasra No. 63//17 is possessed by Naseeb Kaur who has no objection if the tubewell continues to run as per Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 and Bachan Singh son of Tulsi Singh has also died. As per law every co-sharer has right over every inch of land so long the land is joint holding.
3. It is further submitted that complainants approached the opposite parties many a times to restore the electricity supply in question as the electricity connection has been disconnected on the basis of wrong and illegal PDCO dated 26.3.2015 but all in vain. It is further submitted that due to said act of opposite parties the complainants not only suffered financial loss but also suffered mental agony and harassment and it is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice.
Relief:-
The opposite parties may be directed to restore the power supply to the tubewell of the complainants and to pay:-
1) Loss of agriculture produce Rs. 50,000/-.
2) Interest from 26.3.2015 to 11.7.2016 @ 18 per annum of Rs. 11,600/-.
3) Compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.
4) Litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.
4. Upon notice of this complaint opposite parties appeared and filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and other legal heirs also have not been impleaded as party to the complaint. The complaint has been filed on wrong facts after concealing the material facts and documents. Further, complaint is not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The complainants have no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint.
5. On merits, it is denied that the motor connection was got installed in the fields owned and possessed by Mukhtiar Singh. However, it has come to the knowledge of the opposite party from the report of the Concerned Pawan Kumar Patwari that the connection in dispute has been running in Khasra No. 63//17 and in the Girdauri also the Khasra No. 63//17 has been mentioned in the name of Bachan Singh son of Tulsi Singh. Further, in the jamabandi also the Khasra No. 63//17 has been mentioned in the name of Bachan Singh son of Tulsi Singh. It is further submitted that one Bahadur Singh has filed an application that the connection has been running in Khasra No. 63//17, the Girdauri of which is in the name of Bahadur Singh. So, an inquiry was made by the opposite party and it appears that the said application is false and suggested the concerned Additional Nigran Engineer, PSPC Limited, City Division, Barnala to consign to the record the above application of Bahadur Singh. But the inquiry has not been concluded and PSPC Limited Barnala has not finally disposed of the inquiry. The inquiry has been still carried on with regard to the ownership and possession of the Khasra No. 63//17. The complainants were called upon to produce the ownership and possessory rights of Khasra No. 63//17. The opposite party vide letter No. 937 of dated 13.8.2014 required the report with regard to ownership and possession of Khasra No. 63//17, 63//13/1, specifically by name. Vide report dated 14.8.2014 on the above mentioned letter report of concerned Patwari was called who reported that the connection in dispute has been running in Khasra No. 63//17 and in the Girdauri also and Khasra No. 63//17 has been mentioned in the name of Bachan Singh son of Tulsi Singh. The complainants have also failed to prove their possession, over the Khasra No. 63//17. After inquiry it has been found by Additional Nigran Engineer Enforcement Sangrur that the connection was issued on wrong property vide letter No. 58 dated 25.3.2015 and it has been ordered to disconnect the connection in dispute and in pursuance thereof the connection has been disconnected vide PDCO dated 26.3.2015. It is denied that the connection has been disconnected without any reason or Khasra No. 63//17 is possessed by Nasib Kaur. As per report of concerned Pawan Kumar Patwari that the connection in dispute has been running in Khasra No. 63//17 and in the Girdauri and Jamabandi also the Khasra No. 63//17 has been possessed by Bachan Singh. The alleged affidavit of Nasib Kaur allegedly attested on 13.7.2016 has never been produced before the answering opposite party nor produced any sale deed. Even, no statement of said Bachan Singh or Nasib Kaur have been got recorded. So, the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.
6. To prove their case the complainants tendered into evidence copy of site report of checking by Enforcement Wing Ex.C-1, copy of letter dated 25.10.2011 Ex.C-2, copy of statement of Jagroop Singh Ex.C-3, copy of will dated 14.12.2000 Ex.C-4, copy of death certificate of Mukhtiar Singh Ex.C-5, copy of death certificate of Jagtar Singh Ex.C-6, copy of application filed by Bahadur Singh Ex.C-7, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 Ex.C-8, copy of reply of letter No. 804 dated 14.7.2013 Ex.C-9, copy of report of Vijay Kumar Field Kanogo Ex.C-10, copy of letter No. 937 dated 13.8.2014 Ex.C-11, copy of PDCO dated 26.3.2015 Ex.C-12, copy of affidavit of Nasib Kaur no objection regarding restore of electric connection Ex.C-13, affidavit of Manjit Kaur wife of Jagtar Singh Ex.C-14, affidavit of complainant Gagandeep Singh Ex.C-15, affidavit of Nasib Kaur Ex.C-16, Godawari for the year 2016 Ex.C-17, copy of death certificate of Bachan Singh son of Tulsi Singh Ex.C-18, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 Ex.C-19 and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainants, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Nitan Kumar SDO Ex.OP-1.2.3/1, copy of application dated 15.2.2011 Ex.OP-1.2.3/2, copy of investigation report Ex.OP-1.2.3/3, copy of letter No. 937 dated 13.8.2014 Ex.OP-1.2.3/4, copy of report of Patwari dated 14.8.2014 Ex.OP-1.2.3/5, copy of PDCO dated 26.3.2015 Ex.OP-1.2.3/6, copy of Girdawari Ex.OP-1.2.3/7, copy of jamabandi Ex.OP-1.2.3/8 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
9. As per Ex.C-12 Permanent Disconnection Order was issued on 26.3.2015 of AP 25-628 and its consumer name Mukhtiar Singh son of Santa Singh Village Uppli. According to Ex.C-10 which is report of Revenue Department by Patwarkhana that as per revenue record of 2010-11 in the column of ownership name of Jasvir Kaur wife of Jagroop Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh has mentioned. Moreover, it is also specifically mentioned in this report that in Khasra No. 63//17 one electrical motor connection has installed. But as per complaint and as per Ex.C-15 that tubewell connection under OYT Scheme bearing Account No. AP-25-628 and the tubewell was installed in the fields owned and possessed by Mukhtiar Singh. The connection installed in Khasra No. 63//13 and 17. Further, it is also mentioned in complaint that Khasra No. 63//17 is possessed by Naseeb Kaur who has no objection if the tubewell continues to run as per Jamabandi 2010-11. So, this Forum has a view that as per revenue report one electrical motor connection is running in Khasra No. 63//17 not in 63//13 and moreover as per revenue report Ex.C-10 that Girdwari revenue record of Khasra No. 63//17 is in favour of Bachan Singh son of Tulsi Singh. So, this report shows that electric motor connection is not running in Khasra No. 63//17 but it is running in Khasra No. 63//13. As per Ex.OP-1.2.3/3 which is investigation report about complaint by Bahadur Singh son of Chand Singh resident of Village Uppli about Account No. P-628 in which electric motor connection is running and it is mentioned in this investigation report that Mukhtiar Singh intimated to Bahadur Singh son of Chand Singh that the land which he is cultivating is ownership of Sardar family and he also gave information that the electric motor connection will be on the name of Sardars who are real owners of this property in which AP-628 was installed. This investigation report Ex.C-2 dated 25.10.2011 and Permanent Disconnection Order was issued on 26.3.2015.
10. Moreover according to facts of the written version by opposite parties the inquiry has been still carried on with regard to the ownership and possession of Khasra No. 63//17. The complainants were called upon to produce the ownership and possessory rights of Khasra No. 63//17. The opposite party vide letter No. 937 dated 13.8.2014 required the report with regard to the ownership and possession of the Khasra No. 63//17, 63//13/1, specifically by name. Vide report dated 14.8.2014 on the above mentioned letter No. 937 dated 13.8.2014 report of concerned Patwari was called. The concerned Patwari Pawan Kumar, vide his report dated 14.8.2014 reported that the connection in dispute has been running in Khasra No. 63//17 and in the girdauri also, the Khasra No. 63//17 has been mentioned in the name of Bachan Singh son of Tulsi Singh. The complainant have also failed to prove their possession over the Khasra No. 63//17. After inquiry it has been found by Add. Nigram Engg. Enforcement Sangrur that the connection was issued on wrong property and vide letter No. 58 dated 25.3.2015 it has been ordered to disconnect the connection in dispute and in pursuance thereof, the connection has been disconnected vide Permanent Disconnection order dated 26.3.2015.
11. Ex.C-7 is the application of Bahadur Singh which is in shape of complaint that Account No. P-628 about electric motor connection is installed in Khasra No. 63//17 and 13 and record of Girdawari is on my name not on name of Mukhtiar Singh. So, this Forum keeps a view that after Ex.C-7 inquiry was made by opposite party and Permanent Disconnection order Ex.C-12 was issued against the complainants which is correct procedure of opposite parties.
12. So, after considering the entire record of the present file the complainants of present complainants are not consumers and the present complaint is not maintainable the above stated Forum and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
23rd Day of February 2018
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Vandna Sidhu) Member
