State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sham Sunder Talwar vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. on 17 August, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.140 of 2013
Date of Institution: 03.12.2013
Date of Decision :17.08.2015
Sham Sunder Talwar, (aged 64 years), H.No.2084/10, Street Jarau,
Chowk Phullanwala, Amritsar 143001.
.....Complainant.....
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., West Sub-Division, Amritsar,
Punjab.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office, Patiala, Punjab.
....Opposite Parties....
Consumer Complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as
amended up to date).
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh.Sham Sunder in person.
For the Opposite parties : Sh.G.S.Ghuman, Advocate
.............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The complainant Sham Sunder Talwar has filed this complaint U/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Consumer Complaint No.140 of 2013 2 "Act) against the OPs on the allegations that his father Sh. Roshan Lal Talwar took on lease basis for 35 years period a vacant piece of land measuring about 900 sq. yards for industrial purpose. He constructed sheds and installed an industrial power connection of 20 HP in his personal name. He sublet the sheds to different tenants.
Sh.R.P Chawla is one of the tenants and one shed has been sublet to Sh. R.P Chawla. R.P Chawla also installed connection of 10 HP in his personal name therein. Sh. R.P Chawla left the tenanted premises in the year 1960 and surrendered the possession of sheds with installed power connection to Roshan Lal Talwar, the father of the complainant. The land was purchased by the father of the complainant from Mahant Sham Dass during the above period in the name of three sons named Sham Sunder Talwar, Ramesh Lal Talwar and Baldev Raj Talwar , vide sale deed dated 23.06.1975. Litigation remained pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate between the tenant and landlord for termination of tenancy rights of sub-lessees of Roshan Lal Talwar. On the basis of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the tenants became direct tenants of the landlords of property. On 01.02.2000, Roshan Lal Talwar, the father of the complainant died and Sham Sunder Talwar entered into exclusive possession of the owner of the property without partition thereof. Vide rent note of year 1963 @ Rs.95/- per month for two sheds consisting area 225 sq. yards area, they were in the name of firm M/s S.M Silk Mills consisting of partners Madan Mohan Khanna, who left the firm during year 1965 and Sudesh Kumar Seth the Consumer Complaint No.140 of 2013 3 second and last partner of firm S.M. Silk Mills and enjoyed the tenancy of the shed by the above firm. Mr. Sudesh Kumar Seth died on 19.02.2005. No new person could enter into the firm without the written consent of the landlord. The rent note was written in the name of firm M/s S.M Silk consisting of partners Madan Mohan Khanna and Sudesh Kumar Seth. The complainant came into exclusive possession as co-owner without partition therein. The legal representatives of Sudesh Kumar Seth are adamant and arrogant while revising current rates of tenancy. Sham Sunder Talwar asked SDO Punjab State Electricity Board Amritsar for release of the DCO (Disconnection order) for installed power connection stating details of the case. As per his letter, dated 21.03.2015, the complainant was engaged in civil and criminal litigation between his brothers for joint property. SDO, PSEB West Sub-Division asked the complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- for release of disconnection orders in the tenanted sheds. The OPs wrote letter no.1241 dated 03.05.2005 to complainant stating that they have issued notice to firm M/s S.M Silk and reply received from the owner of the firm was attached for ready reference and they showed their inability to disconnect the electricity connection till pending litigation was culminated. The complainant alleged conspiracy on the part of OPs in this case. It was further averred that amount of more than Rs.5000/- has to be paid through cheque only, as per rules of the Electricity Department. The complainant has sought direction for disconnection of the power connection of different accounts in different sheds in property Consumer Complaint No.140 of 2013 4 no.1387-A. The complainant has also prayed that security deposited with these power connections be refunded to him.
2. Notice of the complaint was served upon OPs and OPs filed written reply to the complaint and contested it vehemently. OP No.1 and 2 averred in the preliminary objections that complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, in as much as the complainant has not obtained the services of the OPs and complainant is not a consumer of OPs. It was further averred that said electricity connection is not in the name of the complainant, but it is in the name of Sh. R.P Chawla, who is consumer of the OPs only. Sh. R.P Chawla has not been impleaded as a party in this case nor his legal representative have been brought on the record by the complainant. On merits, OPs denied most of the allegations of the complainant for want of knowledge. OPs pleaded that no illegal gratification was ever demanded from the complainant as alleged in the complaint and this allegation is totally false. It was further pleaded that OPs have not succumbed to the pressure of the complainant to disconnect the electricity connection of rental premises as sought by him and complainant has vented out his frustration only. It was further pleaded that the above consumer being electricity connection holder has been regularly paying electricity consumption charges to the OPs. OPs further pleaded that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint, in as much as he is not a consumer of the OPs and Ops prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Consumer Complaint No.140 of 2013 5
3. The complainant tendered in evidence, the affidavit of complainant Ex.C-A along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-25. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence the affidavit of Er. Pawan Kumar Sub Divisional Officer, West Commercial Sub Division PSPCL, Amritsar Ex.OP-1/A.
4. We have heard the complainant in person and Sh.G.S Ghuman Advocate counsel for opposite parties and have also examined the record of the case. The complainant relied upon document Ex.C-A his affidavit and other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C- 25 on the record in this case. We have carefully perused the pleadings of both the parties on the record and also examined the above-referred documents in this case. Ex.C-1 is demand draft of Rs.2000/- in the name of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh. Ex.C-2 is letter written by the complainant to Chief Justice Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Ex.C-3 is letter sent by Superintendent of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to complainant to the effect that he could file the complaint before appropriate Fora under the Act. Ex.C-4 is copy of the complaint. Ex.C-5 is copy of sale deed dated 23.05.1985 executed by Narinder Nath in favour of Roshan Lal. Ex.C-6 is judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.1850 of 2005, decided on 01.04.2005 to the effect that co-owner in exclusive possession is entitled to protect his possession till partition of the joint holding. Ex.C-7 is copy of the some document in Urdu Script, but its Consumer Complaint No.140 of 2013 6 translation has not been produced by the complainant on the record, despite the fact that this script has become obsolete in our area. Ex.C-8 is death certificate of Roshal Lal Talwar, his date of death is 01.02.2000. Ex.C-9 is death certificate of Sudesh Kumar Seth, his date of death is 19.02.2005. Ex.C-10 is letter from the Executive Engineer of OPs to Sham Sunder Talwar with regard to the fact that the title dispute has been pending in the court of Smt. Harpreet Kaur, Additional Civil Judge Amritsar. Ex.C-12 is letter addressed to Sham Sunder Talwar from OPs. Ex.C-13 is letter addressed to Sham Sunder Talwar from Executive Engineer of PSEB/OPs to the effect that civil suit has been pending between the parties in the court of Additional Civil Judge at Amritsar. Ex.Ex-13/A is letter of Additional Executive Engineer PSEB/OPs to Sham Sunder Talwar to the effect that the disconnection cannot be carried out as long as there is no decision by the competent court in the above civil suit, wherein the complainant is involved. Ex.C-14 is the letter to the effect that electricity connection is in the name of R.P Chawla and he is consumer of OPs. Copies of letters Ex.C-14/A, Ex.C-15 and Ex.C15/A have also been examined by us on the record. Ex.C-16 is copy of written statement. Ex.C-17 is copy of the plaint. Ex.C-18 is copy of the application under Section 13 of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949 between Harbans Lal versus M/s S.M Silk Mill. Ex.C-19 and Ex.C20 are the documents of correspondence. Ex.C-22 is receipt of Rs.500/- . Ex.C-23 is another document of OPs. Affidavit Consumer Complaint No.140 of 2013 7 of Sham Sunder is also on the record, which has also been examined by us. Ex.C-25 is notification dated 29.06.2007.
5. OPs relied upon the affidavit of Er. Pawan Kumar Sub Divisional Officer, West Commercial Sub Division PSPCL Amrtisar Ex.OP-1/A in this case.
6. From hearing respective submissions of complainant and counsel for the opposite parties and from appraisal of above-referred evidence on the record, we find that Roshan Lal originally purchased the property and he let it out some tenants. The predecessors in interest of R.P Chawla were the tenants in the property in dispute. The tenancy is heritable as per East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949. The tenant becomes statutory tenant and could not be evicted from the demise property except in accordance with the procedure established under the above Act. The order of ejectment can be passed only by the Rent Controller under the above Act terminating the tenancy on the ground specified therein only. The OPs have placed on record the affidavit of Pawan Kumar Sub Divisional Officer on oath that R.P Chawla is consumer of the OPs. The electricity connection is in the name of R.P Chawla and he has been paying the consumption bills to OPs without fail. It is further stated that R.P Chawla made default in making payment of the electricity bills and consequently disconnection order was issued on 05.08.2014. As per affidavit of Engineer Pawan Kumar Sub Divisional Officer West Commercial Sub Division PSPCL Amritsar Ex.OP-A, the electricity connection in the name of R.P Chawla has Consumer Complaint No.140 of 2013 8 already been disconnected by the OPs on account of non-payment of the consumption charges by him. The controversy regarding disconnection of electricity connection, as raised by the complainant stood abated with the disconnection of electricity connection. Now, complainant has confined his relief during the arguments to the point that security deposited in the above connection be refunded to him. From perusal of the documents on the record, we find that civil matter is already pending between Ramesh Lal Talwar and others versus Sh. Sham Sunder Talwar and others before the civil court, vide Ex.C-17 on the record. The final judgment delivered by the competent civil court has not been placed on the record. Similarly, Rent Petition filed by Harbans Lal against M/s S.M Silk Mill situated at Gali Kapporian wali and has also been yet pending, vide document Ex.C-18 on the record before Rent Controller Amritsar. The relief of the complainant is for security amount deposited against the electricity connection by the connection holder only.
7. From perusal of the above documents of the record, we find that matter is under adjudication before the Civil Court in this case. The matter is complex as to who is entitled to receive the security amount or not. This type of matter can not be adjudicated in summary procedure by the Consumer Forum. Even disconnected electricity connection of the R.P Chawla can be restored, provided he paid the penalty for its restoration to the OPs on the basis of being tenant in the property in dispute besides consumption charges. We are of this view that this is a case where complex facts and law Consumer Complaint No.140 of 2013 9 are involved, which cannot be determined in summary proceedings by the Consumer Forum. This matter can be adjudicated by the Competent Civil Court only in regular procedure. We, thus, hold that the matter in hand as to whether the complainant is entitled to refund of the security amount or can not be decided by this Consumer Forum in summary proceeding.
8. As a result of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant by leaving the complainant to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievance and complainant is at liberty to approach Civil Court, if he so wished. No order as to cost is passed in view of peculiar circumstances of the case.
9. Arguments in this complaint were heard on 11.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
10. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER August 17, 2015.
(ravi)