SWARNI vs Jagjit Singh

THE dispute in the present appeal is in a very narrow compass. THEre was one electricity connection with which we are concerned in this case i.e. bearing No. BL-34 for 3 BHP in the name of one Tara Singh. Tara Singh is stated to have sold that electricity connection to the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant Smt. Swarni. It is the case of Smt. Swarni that since the sale of the electricity connection by Tara Singh way back in the year 1968 her predecessor-in-interest and later on she has been using the electricity connection for running the tubewell. It is not disputed before us that on the basis of the alleged sale the predecessor-in-interest of Swarni never got the electricity connection transferred in their name from PSEB authorities. Tara Singh died. Inheritance opened. On the basis of an alleged family settlement the heirs which included Jagjit Singh complainant as the son of Tara Singh applied for shifting of the tubewell connection in dispute to his land with the PSEB authorities and deposited the requisite fee. Smt. Swarni the present appellant got herself impleaded before the District Forum when Jagjit Singh filed a complaint for directing the PSEB authorities to shift the electricity connection in his fields.

FURTHER facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that a civil suit for restraining the complainant Jagjit Singh and others from shifting the said electricity connection to their fields was filed and is still pending in the Civil Court. Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC has since been dismissed by the Civil Court. After appreciating the evidence on the record the District Forum allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 8.11.2005 in the following terms : "11. As a result of the above discussion, this complaint must succeed. We accordingly make an order ordering the shifting of the disputed tubewell connection bearing A/c No. BL-34 as applied for by the complainant as well as for transfer of that connection from the name of Tara Singh deceased to that of Jagjit Singh complainant. It is, however, made clear that shifting/transfer of the disputed tubewell connection in the case would be subject to the rights and interest of the parties in the civil suit already filed by Swarni and stated to be pending in the Civil Court. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. The respondents are granted six weeks'' time to comply with the orders of the Forum from the date of receipt of a copy of the order."

This appeal has been filed by Smt. Swarni. The only argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the complainant Jagjit Singh cannot be said to be a ''consumer'' under the CP Act. To buttress this argument, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the time of the sale of the tubewell connection predecessor-in-interest of the appellant Swarni and thereafter Swarni has been using the tubewell connection and not the complainant Jagjit Singh and since Jagjit Singh is not the user of the electricity connection he cannot be said to be a consumer. We do not agree with him. It is not disputed that Jagjit Singh the complainant is one of the heirs of Tara Singh deceased. By inheritance they would inherit whatever was owned by Tara Singh. If by an inheritance Jagjit Singh cannot become the owner then the only persons who can object to such rights are the other heirs. The fact as to whether the tubewell connection in question was inheritable or not inasmuch as it is being alleged that the same stood sold to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant Swarni is subject matter of a civil suit. Till civil suit is decided in favour of Swarni whatever was owned by Tara Singh was inheritable by the heirs. As observed above, Jagjit Singh is one of the heirs of Tara Singh he would certainly be a ''consumer'' being the owner of the electricity connection. The appellant alleging herself to be user of the electricity connection can also be said to be a ''consumer'' but that will not bar the complainant Jagjit Singh that he being the inheritor of Tara Singh is entitled to the ownership of the electricity connection and then can deal with that electricity connection in the way he likes till Civil Court decides otherwise.

Learned Counsel for the appellant cited a judgment of Haryana State Commission in Naresh Chander v. S.D.O., H.S.E.B., III (1995) CPJ 162, to say that this complaint was not maintainable. The judgment is totally being misread by the learned Counsel for the appellant. As observed above, once we hold that Jagjit Singh is a ''consumer'' and as he had inherited the rights of Tara Singh certainly a complaint would be maintainable at his instance. The only person who can object to the inheritance can be his brothers i.e. other heirs. The District Forum while granting the relief to Jagjit Singh complainant has taken care of the fact that whatever relief is being granted would be subject to the judgment of the Civil Court in the civil suit which is pending between the parties. We do not find any infirmity in that order which we uphold.

AS a matter of abundant caution, we may just clarify that in case the civil suit is decided in favour of the plaintiff Swarni and against the complainant Jagjit Singh wherein it may be held that by virtue of the alleged sale the electricity connection in question was not inheritable then by virtue of the Civil Court judgment subject to the right of appeal of the party losing the case, the PSEB authorities as per the judgment of the Civil Court would shift back the electricity connection wherever it was prior to the filing of the complaint by the complainant Jagjit Singh. Subject to what has been observed above, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.