Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/309

Mona - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Ramesh Kumar

09 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 309 dated 26.06.2019.                                                       Date of decision: 09.09.2022.

         

Mona aged 40 years wife of Sh.Gulshan Kumar resident of House No.520, Street No.1, Janakpuri, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                     ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala through its Chairman.

2.Chief Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Opposite PAU Gate, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

3.Additional S.E.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, CMC (Spl).Division, Near Cheema Chowk, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana.

4.Bant Singh, J.E.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, CMC(Spl).Division, Near Cheema Chowk, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                           …..Opposite parties 

              Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Manish Midha, Advocate.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she applied for new electricity connection to be installed at the premises of the complainant on 22.06.2017. The OPs received Rs.1400/- from the complainant vide receipt dated 22.06.2017. Thereafter, the OPs installed the electric connection on 27.07.2017 at the premises of the complainant. However, on 01.08.2017 when the complainant was away from the house, the OPs illegally and unlawfully without giving any notice, removed the electric connection from her premises. On coming to know about the disconnection of the electric connection, the complainant approached the OPs to restore the same but to no avail. The complainant got served legal notices dated 14.08.2017 and 03.04.2018 requesting the OPs to restore the electric connection but to no avail. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to restore the electric connection at the premises of the complainant and be also made to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complainant has already filed a civil suit in respect of the same subject matter and a contempt petition under order 39 rule 2(a) CPC is pending the Court of Sh.Jasbeer Singh, Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ludhiana. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. According to the OPs, the complainant moved an application for grant of new electric connection. The job order was issued but as per the report of the concerned JE, the application of the complainant was rejected because the property in which the electric connection was applied for was a disputed one as civil suit and contempt petition was pending in the Civil Court regarding the same. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                To prove her case, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and thereafter, closed his evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RA of Er.Sukhbir Singh, Senior Executive Engineer of Ops along with documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through records.

6.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that she applied for new electric connection to be installed at her premises and the connection was initially installed on 27.07.2017. The complainant has, however, not stated as to where the connection was to be installed. During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has argued that house for which the connection was applied for belongs to the father-in-law of the complainant and admittedly, a temporary injunction has also been granted against the father-in-law and others vide order dated 30.03.2019 and passed in favour of the complainant and therefore, it is evident that the complainant is in possession and is also entitled to get a connection installed therein.

7.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant is neither owner nor a tenant in the property in question. Civil litigation is pending between the complainant and the owner of the house in question. Counsel for the OPs has further argued that until and unless, the owner of the house grants permission to install a separate connection in the separate portion of the house in question, no connection can be installed. Counsel for the OPs has further argued that even the house in question where the complainant is residing with her family is just one dwelling unit and in a single dwelling unit, only one connection can be installed.

8.                We have weighed the rival contentions raised by counsel for the parties.

9.                Admittedly, the complainant is not the owner of the house in question where she is residing and the said house belongs to the father-in-law of the complainant and an order dated 30.03.2019 was passed by the civil court, whereby an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of CPC was decided in favour of the complainant has been placed on record and a perusal of the said order reveals that in the civil suit, the complainant has claimed that she is owner in possession of one unit in the house. However, while filing the present complaint, she has not specified as to which area of the house she has exclusive possession where she wanted to get the connection installed. Even otherwise, the complainant is in litigation with the owner of the property in question. The complainant has also not placed on record any site plan of the property in question to specifically depict as to which portion she has in her exclusive possession. When civil litigation is already pending between the complainant and her father-in-law, who is admittedly the owner of the property, appropriate remedy available with the complainant is to seek the amenity of electricity from her father-in-law in the civil suit filed by her. In these circumstances, when the complainant has not the owner of the property in question and civil litigation is pending between the parties, if connection was not installed by the OPs, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to seek the relief of amenity of electricity in the civil litigation pending with the civil court. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                     (Jaswinder Singh)                   (K.K. Kareer)                                                Member                                            President

Announced in Open Commission                                            Dated:09.09.2022                                                                                              Gurpreet Sharma