State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Kishori Lal. vs Sh. Tek Ram. & Ors. on 25 September, 2018
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
Revision Petition No.: 30/2018
Date of Presentation: 29.03.2018
Order Reserved On : 25.07.2018
Date of Order : 25.09.2018
......
Kishori Lal s/o Shri Nanak Chand r/o Village and Post Office
Jalog Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P.
...... Revisionist/ Opposite party No.5
Versus
1. Shri Tek Ram s/o Shri Mathoo Ram r/o Village and Post
Office Jalog Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P.
......Non-revisionist/Complainant
2. Shri Lokinder s/o Late Shri Anant Ram r/o Village Gadau
Post Office Jalog Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P.
3. Shri Virender s/o Late Shri Anant Ram r/o Village Gadau
Post Office Jalog Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P.
......Non-revisionists/Opposite parties No.3 & 4
4. H.P. State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan Shimla-4 H.P.
through its Secretary.
5. The SDO HPSEB Electrical Division Jalog Tehsil Sunni
District Shimla H.P.
......Non-revisionists/Opposite parties No.1&2
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Revisionist : Mr. Varun Chandel Advocate
For Non-revisionist No.1 : Mr. Swaran Sharma Advocate.
For Non-revisionists No.2&3: Ex-parte.
For Non-revisionists No.4&5: Mr. Ramakant Sharma Advocate.
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Kishori Lal Versus Tek Ram & Ors (R.P. No.30/2018)
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT :
O R D E R:-
1. Present revision petition is filed against order dated 20.03.2018 passed by learned District Forum in Misc. Application No.02/2018 titled Tek Ram Versus H.P. State Electricity Board & Ors.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Complainant Tek Ram filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite parties pleaded therein that complainant Tek Ram was tenant of Shri Anant Ram in shop situated at Village and Post Office Jalog Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P. It is pleaded that after the death of Shri Anant Ram ownership of shop devolved upon Shri Lokinder and Shri Virender both sons of late Shri Anant Ram. It is further pleaded that after the death of Shri Anant Ram Shri Lokinder and Shri Virender became landlords of complainant Tek Ram. It is further pleaded that thereafter landlords Shri Lokinder and Shri Virender alienated the shop in the name of opposite party No.5 i.e. Shri Kishori Lal by way of sale deed. It is further pleaded that Shri Lokinder, Shri Virender and Shri Kishori Lal in collusion with each other applied to the Electricity Department for disconnection of electrical meter installed in the shop. Complainant sought relief against opposite parties to the effect not to disconnect the electrical 2 Kishori Lal Versus Tek Ram & Ors (R.P. No.30/2018) connection/meter installed in the shop premises of the complainant situated at Village and Post Office Jalog Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P. Complainant sought alternative relief for issuance of fresh electricity connection in the premises. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.100000/-
(One lac) as damages for mental torture, harassment and financial loss. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.25000/- (Twenty five thousand) as litigation costs.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1&2 pleaded therein that electricity connection was disconnected as per request of Shri Lokinder Verma and Shri Virender Verma both sons of Shri Anant Ram. It is further pleaded that following documents are required for fresh connection in favour of complainant (1) Legal document supporting such letting and NOC of the owner (2) Copy of current electricity bill duly paid with no arrears (3) A&A form duly filled with one cross stamp paper of Rs.10/- (4) Affidavit from the owner to bear the outstanding liability of tenant if remain unpaid (5) Identity proof of new applicant (6) Affidavit for change of name as per annexure-B. It is pleaded that complainant did not furnish the above stated documents. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.3 & 4 pleaded therein that premises in question has been sold vide sale deed No. 350/17 dated 3 Kishori Lal Versus Tek Ram & Ors (R.P. No.30/2018) 14.11.2017 in favour of opposite party No.5. It is admitted that Tek Ram was earlier tenant of Shri Anant Ram who died during the year 2008. It is also admitted that Shri Lokinder and Shri Virender became the owner of premises being legal heirs of Shri Anant Ram. It is admitted that opposite parties No.3 and 4 have applied to the electricity department for the disconnection of electricity meter installed in the premises in the name of late Shri Anant Ram. It is further pleaded that now opposite party No.5 is owner of shop wherein electricity meter has been installed. It is further pleaded that Shri Tek Ram has become tenant of opposite party No.5. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
5. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.5 pleaded therein that opposite party No.5 is the owner of premises by way of sale deed and it is further pleaded that premises is unsafe structure. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 intends to reconstruct the shop. It is further pleaded that there is no question of granting no objection certificate in favour of Tek Ram. It is further pleaded that as per Electricity Rules Electricity Department is not legally competent to provide electricity connection in building without prior consent of owner of premises/shop. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
6. During the pendency of consumer complaint complainant sought interim relief to the effect that electricity 4 Kishori Lal Versus Tek Ram & Ors (R.P. No.30/2018) department be directed not to disconnect the electricity connection of the shop of complainant situated at Village and Post Office Jalog Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P. In alternative complainant sought relief of fresh electricity connection in his name till the disposal of consumer complaint.
7. Opposite parties resisted the interim application filed by tenant/complainant.
8. Learned District Forum vide interim order dated 20.03.2018 allowed the interim application filed by complainant and directed opposite parties No.1 and 2 to install the new electricity connection in the shop occupied by complainant till the disposal of main complaint subject to furnishing indemnity bond in accordance with the terms and conditions contained under instruction No.23 of the Sales Manual of H.P. State Electricity Board.
9. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum opposite party No.5 Shri Kishori Lal who has purchased the shop in question filed present revision petition before State Commission.
10. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of revisionist, non-revisionist No.1 and non-revisionist No.4 & 5 and we have also perused entire record carefully. Non- revisionists No.2 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte by State Commission.
5
Kishori Lal Versus Tek Ram & Ors (R.P. No.30/2018)
11. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition.
1. Whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to grant interim relief to the complainant under Consumer Protection Act 1986 relating to complicated dispute between landlord, tenant and electricity department?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that as per report submitted by D.R. Sharma & Associates annexure R-5/3 building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation and may collapse at any time and on this ground revision petition filed by revisionist be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the report submitted by D.R. Sharma & Associates annexure R-5/3. There is recital in the report that building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation and may collapse at any time because it has loose it structurally strength. State Commission is of the opinion that present dispute is not simpliciter dispute between the complainant and electricity department but present dispute is complicated dispute between landlord, tenant and electricity department. State Commission of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to grant interim relief under Consumer Protection Act 6 Kishori Lal Versus Tek Ram & Ors (R.P. No.30/2018) 1986 when present dispute is not simplicitor dispute between the complainant and electricity department but is complicated dispute between landlord, tenant and electricity department.
13. It is also prima-facie proved on record as per certificate annexure R/1 dated 24.01.2018 issued by Pradhan Gram Panchayat Ogli Block Basantpur Tehsil Sunni District Shimla that complainant has been allotted one shop from BPL quota and second shop under General quota by Gram Panchayat Ogli Block Basantpur Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is running two stalls one under General Category and other under BPL category for earning his livelihood.
14. State Commission is of the opinion that before passing any interim order learned District Forums are under legal obligation to see triplicate factors i.e. Prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of report of Pradhan and in view of factual report submitted by D.R. Sharma & Associates that building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation and may collapse at any time prima-facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of landlord and are not in favour of tenant. In view of above stated facts State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to grant interim relief under Consumer Protection Act 1986.7
Kishori Lal Versus Tek Ram & Ors (R.P. No.30/2018)
15. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist No.1 that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of report submitted by D.R. Sharma and Associates annexure R-5/3 relating to factual position of structure and in view of certificate given by Pradhan Gram Panchayat Ogli Block Basantpur Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P. it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to grant interim relief to tenant/complainant Tek Ram under Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that triplicate factors of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not in favour of complainant/tenant. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
16. In view of findings upon point No.1 above revision petition is allowed and interim order dated 20.03.2018 passed by learned District Forum in M.A. No. 02/2018 titled Tek Ram Versus H.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. is set aside and misc. application No.02 of 2018 filed by complainant/tenant is dismissed. Report submitted by D.R. Sharma & Associates annexure R-5/3 and certificate given by Pradhan Gram Panchayat Ogli Block Basantpur Tehsil Sunni District Shimla annexure R/I shall form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission (HP). 8
Kishori Lal Versus Tek Ram & Ors (R.P. No.30/2018) Parties are directed to appear before learned District Forum on 04.10.2018. Learned District Forum shall dispose of consumer complaint on merits within two months after joining of President of District Forum. Observations shall not effect merits of consumer complaint in any manner and shall be strictly confined for disposal of revision petition. 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 cost strictly as per rules. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member 25.09.2018.
*GUPTA* 9 Kishori Lal Versus Tek Ram & Ors (R.P. No.30/2018) H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA Misc. Application No. : 449/2018 Revision Petition No. : 30/2018 Order announced in CMA :25.09.2018 Kishori Lal s/o Shri Nanak Chand r/o Village and Post Office Jalog Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P. ...... Applicant/ Opposite party No.5 Versus
1. Shri Tek Ram s/o Shri Mathoo Ram r/o Village and Post Office Jalog Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P. ......Non-applicant/Complainant
2. Shri Lokinder s/o Late Shri Anant Ram r/o Village Gadau Post Office Jalog Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P.
3. Shri Virender s/o Late Shri Anant Ram r/o Village Gadau Post Office Jalog Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P. ......Non-applicants/Opposite parties No.3 & 4
4. H.P. State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan Shimla-4 H.P. through its Secretary.
5. The SDO HPSEB Electrical Division Jalog Tehsil Sunni District Shimla H.P. ......Non-applicants/Opposite parties No.1&2 Coram Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member Whether approved for reporting?2 Yes.
For Applicant : Mr. Varun Chandel Advocate For Non-applicant No.1 : Mr. Swaran Sharma Advocate.
For Non- applicants No.2&3: Ex-parte.
For Non- applicants No.4&5: Mr. Ramakant Sharma Advocate.
2
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 10
Kishori Lal Versus Tek Ram & Ors (R.P. No.30/2018) JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present application is filed by applicant for adducing additional evidence in revision petition. Applicant intends to place on record certificate issued by H.P. Town and Country Planning Department annexure A/1. It is pleaded that certificate issued by H.P. Town and Country Planning Department annexure A/1 is essential for adjudication of present revision petition properly and effectively. Prayer for acceptance of application sought.
2. Response not filed by non-applicants despite opportunity granted.
3. We have heard learned advocates for applicant, non-applicant No.1 and non-applicants 4&5 and we have also perused entire record carefully.
4. Following points arise for determination in present application.
1. Whether application filed by applicant for adducing additional evidence in revision petition is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of application?
2. Final order.
11
Kishori Lal Versus Tek Ram & Ors (R.P. No.30/2018) Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
5. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that certificate issued by H.P. Town and Country Planning Department is material for the disposal of revision petition and on this ground application filed for adducing additional evidence be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that additional document could be placed on record if following conditions are fulfilled:-
i) That learned District Forum has refused to admit the document in evidence which ought to have been admitted.
ii) That parties seeking to produce additional evidence in appellate stage established that notwithstanding after exercise of due diligence such evidence was not within the knowledge of party or could not after exercise of due diligence be produced at the time when final order was passed by learned District Forum.
iii) That appellate authority require the document to pronounce order or for any other substantial cause.
6. State Commission is of the opinion that applicant did not fulfill the above stated mandatory conditions and revision petition could be disposed of properly and effectively without allowing the application.
12
Kishori Lal Versus Tek Ram & Ors (R.P. No.30/2018)
7. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicants that applicant intends to fill up lacuna in the revision petition and on this ground application be dismissed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that party could not be allowed to fill up lacuna in the revision petition. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to allow the application at this stage. It is held that revision petition could be disposed of properly and effective without allowing the application. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
8. In view of findings upon point No.1 above application for adducing additional evidence in revision petition is dismissed. Observations shall not effect merits of revision petition in any manner. It be tagged with main file after due completion. M.A. No.449/2018 is disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member 25.09.2018.
*GUPTA* 13