PRITPAL SINGH vs PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD

THE case of Dr. Pritpal Singh, the complainant, is as follows. His great -grand -father, Sh. Bhola @ Bhola Ram, was having land, measuring 25 Kanals 13 Marlas in Village Bahadurpur, Hoshiarpur, as per Jamabandi. In the year 1909 -1910, vide Gift Deed, dated 07.12.1904, Pujari of the temple was given the land, for his use. Subsequently, Bhola executed Will dated 20.01.1907 in favour of Munshi Ram and Shiv Dass, his sons. The legal heirs of Sh.Bhola Ram created a Private Trust, under the name and style of ''Bhola Ram Mistary Shivala and Sarai Trust'', Bahadurpur which was registered on 20.04.1968.

AN electricity meter was installed in the said Trust, in the name of Jagannath Pujari who died on 03.08.1980. Assistant Executive Engineer, OP2 of Punjab State Power Corporation changed the electricity connection in the name of the complainant after completion of all the formalities. Thereafter, the complainant had been the paying the electricity connection charges from 2005 till 2011.

IN the year 1982, Bihari Chobe and others filed a civil suit against the legal representatives of Bhola Ram. The said suit was dismissed on 07.06.1985. First Appeal was also dismissed on 25.02.1989. However, Regular Second Appeal is still pending before the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. In the meantime, OP2 informed the complainant that he was not aware of the civil litigation. OP2 transferred the electric connection from the name of the complainant to the name of Pujari. That action has been called into question and in addition, the petitioner has also demanded compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/ - and litigation expenses in the sum of Rs.10,000/ - from Punjab State Power Corporation, OP1 and Assistant Executive Engineer, OP2. It is interesting to note that Pujari was not made a party in this case. The OPs have contested this case. The District Forum allowed this complaint and OP2 was directed to restore the connection in favour of the complainant and the complainant was also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/ - as compensation.

APPEAL against the respondent/complainant was accepted by the State Commission, and it was ordered : "In view of the above circumstances, the appeal is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The matter between the parties is with regard to transfer of the connection in the name of the complainant is already pending before the civil court, therefore, the parties are left to agitate their rights before the civil court about their right to get the connection transferred with no order as to costs".

IT was held that the electric connection was transferred in the name of Pujari on 27.05.2011 because it had come to the knowledge that title suit was pending. Sh. Abhey Dutta, Member of Shiv Mandir, Hoshiarpur had moved an application to the OP that the complainant had fraudulently got the connection transferred in his name and it be again transferred in the name of the ''consumer''. The complainant did not produce the documents upon which he got the connection in the year 2005. He also could not produce those documents before the consumer fora. It also transpired that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was not in a possession of the property in question. Again, the complainant did not comply with the provisions under Regulation 38.2 of the Sales Manual and when the matter was pending in the Civil Court, the Additional Superintending Engineer, without going into the details of the case, had also transferred the name in favour of the complainant/petitioner under Regulation 38.2 of the Sales Manual. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant had fraudulently got transferred the electricity meter in the name of Jagannath Pujari by not disclosing the true facts.

WE have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He has invited our attention towards the "application for supply of electricity for loads exceeding 500 KVA (all categories)", condition No.4 of the guidelines for prospective/existing consumer for a new connection/extension in load, etc., by the Punjab State Power Corporation", the indemnity bond, the rules and regulations for change of name, title and towards the clauses 30.5 and 30.6 of the Electricity Supply Manual, affidavit filed by the complainant dated 04.12.2004. It was argued that this is a separate matter and all these questions cannot be raised in the civil court. It was pointed out that OP1 and OP2 are not parties before the civil court. The Ld. Counsel contended that as per the rules, the OPs are required to go through certain formalities which are detailed in the above said rules and regulations.

ALL these arguments pale into insignificance due to the pendency of the civil litigation. It is clear that the civil court is seized of the matter. The complainant is not in possession of the premises in dispute. It appears that by filing this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant wants to take advantage in respect of disputed premises. There lies no rub in impleading the OPs as parties before the Civil Court. The complainant must stand on his own legs. He should have evidence to bolster his case. He has not adduced any evidence which may go to show that he is entitled to have the electric connection, in his name. For all these reasons, the judgment of the State Commission cannot be faulted. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.