State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kuldeep Singh vs Uhbvnl on 31 October, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry Heading1 Heading2 First Appeal No. A/1123/2018 ( Date of Filing : 27 Sep 2018 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 20/07/2018 in Case No. 101/2016 of District Karnal) 1. KULDEEP SINGH VILLAGE SHAHAPUR, TEHSIL INDRI, DISTT. KARNAL. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UHBVNL INDRI, DISTT. KARNAL. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: NARESH KATYAL PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 31 Oct 2023 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 25.09.2018 Date of final hearing: 25.08.2023 Date of pronouncement: 31.10.2023 First Appeal No.1123 of 2018 IN THE MATTER OF:- Kuldeep Singh S/o Late Sh. Jai Pal S/o Sh. Mansa Ram, R/o Village: Shahapur, Tehsil-Indri, District: Karnal. ....Appellant Versus Sub Divisional Officer, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division Indri, District Karnal. Executive Engineer, S/U Division No.1, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sector-12, Karnal. Superintending Engineer, Uttri Hryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sector-12, Karnal. .....Respondents CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh. Nonish Kumar, counsel for appellant. Ms. Alka Joshi, counsel for respondents. ORDER NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Challenge in this appeal No.1123 of 2018 is invited by unsuccessful complainant-Kuldeep Singh, to the legality of order dated 20.07.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Karnal (In short "District Consumer Commission") in complaint No.101 of 2016 vide which his complaint was dismissed.
2. Complainant has alleged that: his father (Jai Pal) is recorded co-owner, in exclusive possession of agricultural land in khasra No.17 out of total land measuring 34 kanals 16 marlas, situated at village Shahpur, Tehsil: Indri, District: Karnal vide Jamabandi of year 2008-2009. His father died on 26.11.2015. After his father's death; he (complainant) being his legal heir, inherited his father's estate vide registered WILL dated 19.05.2009. It is pleaded that every killa number cannot be cultivated by each co-sharer, as such as per suitability of co-sharers; a family settlement/oral partition was arrived between all co-owners and khasra No.17 of Rect. No.10 came in share of his late father, as such, his late father was in its exclusive possession. Common tubewell, along with electric connection was installed by all co-sharers in killa number 24/1 and joint electric connection bearing No.1191-X, is standing in name of Sh. Hari Singh (uncle of complainant). During life time of his late father; his (complainant's) cousin Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ved Parkash, who is also co-sharer in aforesaid land, created problems in irrigation of land, by complainant's father from common tubewell. His late father filed civil suit for declaration and injunction against Anil Kumar and others which is pending before Civil Court-Indri. Late father of complainant applied for new electric connection with OP No.1 and also got installed his bore in his khasra No.17; also deposited security amount with OPs and completed other formalities as required by OPs. OP No.1 sent demand letter bearing No.3465 dated 24.04.2011 and demanded Rs.20,000/- consent money and Rs.7000/- per span (pole) from his father and same was deposited with OP No.1 by his late father. After receiving requisite amount and completing formalities; OPs also installed electric poles for new connection in name of his late father, who also purchased a mono-block motor for his new tubewell connection vide receipt dated 28.04.2011 as per requirements of OPs. Due to inimical approach of Anil Kumar etc. towards his (complainant's) family, they wanted to blackmail and harass him and on their instance; OPs illegally withheld electric tubewell connection of complainant, without any rhyme and reason. Earlier, his late father and now he (complainant) at many times, visited office of OP No.1 and requested to issue electric connection and also requested OPs that: they are ready to give undertaking that: if said khasra number came to share of any other co-sharer, then they would take price of bore and get said connection transferred in his share, but officials of OP No.1 did not pay any heed to that request. OPs always lingered the matter on one pretext or other. By pleading deficiency in service of OPs; complaint has been filed for issuing direction to OPs to issue electric connection in the name of complainant on his agriculture land and award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental pain and agony and to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. OPs, in defence submitted preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction; maintainability of complaint and complainant is not consumer. Controversy involved in complaint is not a consume dispute. Complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and suffers from concealment of true and material facts. Except application under Section 22-C before PLA; one civil suit titled as "Jai Pal Versus UHBVN and others" is being contested by complainant, in which, same relief is claimed as in this complaint. Complainant cannot seek same relief from different courts/forum. Father of complainant applied for new electric connection with OPs and deposited security amount, but complainant has not completed required formalities. At the time of applying connection; applicant stated that land in which he is getting connection has been partitioned but lateron it has been revealed that said land has, so far, not being partitioned between co-sharers as Anil Kumar S/o Ved Parkash moved application in this regard to office of OP No.2, who in turn wrote letter to applicant to produce document of partition of land but he failed. When land is joint and there are co-owners, then before releasing electric connection; NOC must be obtained from each co-owners regarding electric connection. Complainant has not received any service from OP and so he is not its consumer. Depositing of security amount to OPs does not make him (complainant) a consumer. There was no deficiency in service of OPs.
4. Parties to this lis led their respective evidence, oral as well documentary.
5. On critically analyzing on pleas on foundation of evidence as led; learned District Consumer Commission-Karnal vide order dated 20.07.2018 has dismissed the complaint, thereby giving rise to filing of this appeal by complainant.
6. This Commission has heard the learned counsel for parties at length.
7. On behalf of appellant it is urged that father of complainant was in exclusive possession of land measuring Khasra No. 17 of total land measuring 34 kanals 16 marlas. Complainant has inherited estate of his father through registered WILL after his father's death which resulted on 26.11.2015. There was a joint tubewell connection meant for irrigation situated in Killa No. 24/1. Since appellant/complainant came in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 17, therefore, rightly an application was filed before OPs for obtaining separate tubewell connection and security amount was also deposited, while fulfilling all formalities. It is urged that if one connection is issued in favour of one co-sharer in joint land, same can also be issued to other. Requirement of obtaining 'no objection' from all co-sharers of joint land was not a necessary requirement. No partition proceeding has been filed or pending in any court of law. Appellant is always ready to give an undertaking that: in case, on partition, joint land in which new connection has now been sought from OPs, fell in share of any other co-sharer then he will not claim any price of it and would transfer the connection in that co-sharer's name. On these submissions; learned counsel for appellant has urged for acceptance of appeal.
8. Refuting the contentions, learned counsel for OPs has urged that impugned order dated 20.07.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Karnal is legally justified on given facts and evidence, warranting no interference in this appeal.
9. This Commission has subjectively analyzed rival submissions, so put before it.
10. Admittedly, as it is so deciphered from pleadings so filed before learned District Consumer Commission that total land measuring 34 kanals 16 marlas is still joint amongst all co-sharers. It is specific stance of appellant herein in his memorandum of appeal in ground no. 12 (i) that no partition application has been filed till today by any co-sharers. As per the case of appellant; his father came in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 17 on the basis of family settlement/oral partition. There is no evidence brought on record which would show that alleged family settlement/oral partition has, in fact been acted upon in latter and spirit. No jamabandi of year 2008-2009 (as pleaded in the complaint) showing appellant's father to be recorded in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 17 has been placed on record. Therefore, on account of above reason, this plea of family settlement/oral partition is bereft of credence. May be the appellant has inherited estate of his father through registered WILL dated 19.05.2009 (Ex. C-1) but that evidence will only attire complainant his status of a co-sharer in joint holding. At legal pedestal, controversy is no more res-integra that: each and every co-sharer of joint holding would be owner in possession of each and every inch of land, unless it is legally partitioned by metes and bounds and every co-sharer is shown in revenue record to be exclusive possession of his separate share. Once, the land is, still joint amongst all co-sharers, then shall legal consequences meant for con-sharers in joint holding, will have to follow. Mere deposit of security amount with OPs will not create any indefeasible right in favour of complainant/appellant to obtain new electric tubewell connection.
11. Rightly, OPs on the basis of its instructions (U-13/2003) has put forward necessary requirement from complainant to provide affidavits of other co-owners regarding the fact that they have 'no objection' in releasing tubewell connection in his joint land. Readiness shown by complainant, in memorandum of appeal (ground No. 12 (iii)) to furnish undertaking that he will not claim price, if new tubewell connection (now sought from OPs), fell to the share of any other co-sharer, at the time of eventual partition of joint holding, will not suffice at all even remotely. Instead, it would open flood gate of litigations amongst different co-sharers of joint holding.
12. In view of above, learned District Consumer Commission-Karnal through its order dated 20.07.2018 (impugned herein) has rightly non-suited the complainant/appellant. This order dated 20.07.2018 does not carry any manifest error, legal or factual. It is accordingly affirmed and maintained. Present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
13. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
14. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
15. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 31st October, 2023.
Naresh Katyal Judicial Member Addl. Bench-II [ NARESH KATYAL] PRESIDING MEMBER