State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Sat Pal Saini. vs Executive Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. on 10 August, 2018
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 24/2018
Date of Presentation: 31.01.2018
Order Reserved on : 28.05.2018
Date of Order : 10.08.2018
......
Satpal Saini Chela Baba Game Shah resident of Bangarh Tehsil
and District Una H.P.
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Executive Engineer Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board
Mehatpur Tehsil and District Una H.P.
......Respondent/Opposite party
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Sukh Dev Sharma Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ramakant Sharma Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 16.01.2018 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.20/2017 titled Satpa Saini Versus A.K Sharma E.E. HPSEB Ltd.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Sat Pal Saini Versus A.K. Sharma E.E. HPSEB Ltd.
(F.A. No.24/2018) Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Shri Sat Pal Saini filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is disciple of Gaddi Baba Game Shah at village Bangarh Tehsil and District Una H.P. It is pleaded that that estate of Gaddi was succeeded by complainant on the basis of WILL dated 04.05.2010 and on the basis of civil writ petition No.3572/2014 decided on 23.09.2016 titled Sat Pal Saini Versus State of H.P. It is further pleaded that after sanctioning of mutation No.993 complainant became Manager of aforesaid seat. It is pleaded that complainant requested opposite party to remove electricity meter No.BGA10052 K.No.1241312431 installed in the name of Baba Pritam Singh Shah. It is pleaded that complainant sought information from opposite party under RTI Act but information under RTI Act was not provided to complainant by opposite party within stipulated period. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.20000/- as damages for non supplying required information under RTI Act. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant is estopped by his act, conduct, omission and commission to file the present consumer complaint. It is pleaded that learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint and 2 Sat Pal Saini Versus A.K. Sharma E.E. HPSEB Ltd.
(F.A. No.24/2018) complainant has no locus standi to file consumer complaint. It is pleaded that on dated 16.11.2016 application received by opposite party from the complainant for permanent disconnection of meter account No.BGA-100156/dS installed in the name of Baba Pritam Shah. It is further pleaded that opposite party issued a PDCO vide No.0133412 dated 27.12.2016 to disconnect electricity meter. It is further pleaded that report was submitted by J.E. that some persons did not allow the electricity department to disconnect the meter in view of the pending civil suit titled Dharma Shah Versus Sat Pal Saini in civil court. It is pleaded that thereafter on dated 19.01.2017 Baba Dharam Shah through advocate intimated the opposite party that order of status quo has been passed by civil court. It is pleaded that demand notice was issued to complainant but complainant did not comply the demand notice and thereafter no action was taken by opposite party till now. It is pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint on the ground of non maintainability. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 3
Sat Pal Saini Versus A.K. Sharma E.E. HPSEB Ltd.
(F.A. No.24/2018)
5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that order passed by learned District Forum is contrary to law and contrary to proved facts and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. We have carefully perused the relief clause of the complainant.
Complainant has sought damages to the tune of Rs.20000/- (Twenty thousand) for non-supplying of information under Right to Information Act. State Commission is of the opinion that matter relating to Right to Information Act is not appealable before State Commission but appealable before Appellate Authority mentioned under Right to Information Act.
8. Complainant did not seek any relief in relief clause qua non installation of electricity meter from opposite party. There is evidence on record that there is civil litigation titled Dharam Shah Versus Sat Pal Saini before competent court of 4 Sat Pal Saini Versus A.K. Sharma E.E. HPSEB Ltd.
(F.A. No.24/2018) law qua property in dispute registered as Civil Suit No.12 of 2014. Shri Dharam Shah has pleaded in civil suit that unregistered WILL executed by Baba Pritam Shah in favour of Sat Pal Saini dated 04.05.2010 is null and void. Civil court has directed parties to maintain status quo qua nature, possession, construction and alienation of suit property. No record placed on record by appellant that civil suit No.12/2014 has been finally disposed of by civil court.
9. It is well settled law that mutation does not confer any title in the suit property. See AIR 2015 SCW 3482 Apex Court titled H. Lakshmaiah Reddy Versus L. Venkatesh Reddy. Mutation No.993 sanctioned in favour of complainant by revenue officer on dated 30.09.2016 would not confer any title to complainant in view of pendency of civil suit and in view of order of status quo passed by civil court. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum.
10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. In view of the fact that complainant has sought relief of damages for non-supplying of required information under Right to Information Act and in 5 Sat Pal Saini Versus A.K. Sharma E.E. HPSEB Ltd.
(F.A. No.24/2018) view of pendency of civil suit titled as Dharma Shah Versus Sat Pal Saini. State Commission is of the opinion that it is no expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
11. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order passed by learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member 10.08.2018 KD* 6