NACHHATTAR SINGH vs CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DEPARTMENT

HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 2.12.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 426 of 2003.

THE appellant applied for transfer of the electric meter installed in House No. 16, Village Buterla, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh from his father Shri Balwant Singh-respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 16.12.2001, the said application for transfer was taken up for consideration by respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the Electricity Supply Department of U.T., Chandigarh. THE father of the appellant namely Sh. Balwant Singh who has been impleaded as respondent No. 5 in this appeal filed his affidavit before the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 wherein he disputed the claim of the appellant regarding the said house by describing the Sale-Deed as a forged Sale-Deed and alleging that he had not transferred his house to his son, the appellant. He also deposed in Para 3 of his affidavit that he had not given any consent to the Electricity Department i.e., S.D.O., Electricity ''O.P.'' Sub-Division No. 9, Sector 43, Chandigarh for the transfer of electricity connection No. A/c No. 309/BT-II/002700X in the name of Sh. Nachhattar Singh son of Shri Balwant Singh. In view of the stand taken by the respondent No. 5, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 did not permit the transfer of the electricity meter in the name of the appellant who filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and also alleging that respondent No. 5 was in connivance with respondent No. 4 - Sub-Divisional Engineer, Sub-Division No. 9, Sector 43, Chandigarh. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the title of the house where the meter in question is sought to be transferred is in dispute and also on the ground that the respondent No. 5, the owner of the house, namely Shri Balwant Singh had not consented for transfer of the electricity meter which stood in his name, to be transferred in the name of his son Shri Nachhattar Singh, the appellant. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, this appeal has been filed.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were deficient in rendering service inasmuch as they failed to transfer the meter in the name of the appellant and prayed that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 should be directed to transfer the meter in the name of the appellant. It may be mentioned that the meter, which is sought to be transferred in the name of the appellant, stands in the name of his father Shri Balwant Singh who not only disputed the averment of the appellant regarding the title of the house, categorically deposed in the affidavit that he did not consent for the transfer of the electricity meter to the name of his son Shri Nahhattar Singh. The learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to show that without the consent of the person in whose name the electricity meter was issued, the same could be transferred by the department in the name of the appellant and as such, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum committed an error in dismissing the complaint on that ground has no merit.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant in the next place urged that the District Forum has gone to the extent of recording a finding about the title of the house being in dispute which was beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum and it clearly jeopardized his interest regarding the title of the house. We find that the question of the title of the house was not involved in the complaint for adjudication before the District Forum. THE only grievance of the complainant was regarding the deficiency in service on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in not transferring the electricity meter to his name and the District Forum was required to consider only that aspect of the matter. We make it clear that the observations of the District Forum regarding the title to the house being disputed is not a finding on merit so as to bind any Tribunal/Court where ultimately such a question may come up for trial and adjudication. THE appeal, for the reasons stated above, lacks merit and is dismissed in limine Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed in limine.