DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR. Complaint No. 427 Instituted on: 23.08.2017 Decided on: 04.01.2018 Jeet Singh son of Gurnam Singh, R/O Punnawal, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur. ..Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its M.D. 2. Assistant Engineer (SDO), City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri Distt. Sangrur. ..Opposite parties For the complainant : Shri Rajan Kapil, Adv. For opposite parties : Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate. Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President Sarita Garg, Member Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President. 1. Shri Jeet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining one tubewell motor connection bearing account number P-611 (15 BHP) from the OPs in his land bearing Khasra number 2187. Further case of the complainant is that he moved an application dated 18.5.2017 to OP number 2 for shifting of the motor connection in question from khasra number 2187 to 2188 as there was fault in the motor connection and also deposited processing fee vide receipt number 49520 dated 19.5.2017, but the connection in question was not shifted, as such the complainant approached the officials for the same, but the officials orally told the complainant that the connection may be shifted at his own, as such the complainant got shifted the connection at his own from khasra number 2187 to 2188. But, the grievance of the complainant is that on 4.7.2017, the OPs disconnected the connection of the complainant without any notice. Though the complainant approached the Ops for restoration of the connection, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to restore the connection in question in khasra number 2188 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses. 2. In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs. It is further admitted that on 18.5.2017, the complainant moved an application for shifting of the connection from khasra number 2187 to 2188 and further admitted that he deposited an amount of Rs.500/- vide receipt dated 19.5.2017. The case of the OPs in the reply is that after deposit of the amount of Rs.500/-, the estimate was prepared by the JE ad the same was countersigned by OP number 2 and sent to the higher authorities vide letter dated 6.6.2017, which was returned with the objections and thereafter the deposited estimate was again sent by OP number 2 to Addl. SE Dhuri in which an amount of Rs.14,878/- was involved. Further case of the OPs is that the complainant moved an application on 12.7.2017 to the Addl SE PSPCL, wherein he has himself mentioned that the has shifted the connection in question at his own, but the connection was disconnected on 20.6.2017. It is stated further that without adopting the procedure and waiting for any letter from the OPs, the complainant illegally shifted the connection in khasra number 2188 from khasra number 2187, as such the case is covered under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and it is stated that the connection of the complainant was disconnected due to illegal shifting of the same by the complainant. Lastly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs. 3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-12 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. 4. We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons. 5. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining the motor connection in question in khasra number 2187. It is further admitted case of the complainant that he applied on 18.5.2017 for shifting of his motor connection in question in khasra number 2188 due to defects in the motor connection. But in the present case the grievance of the complainant is that despite the fact he deposited an amount of Rs.500/- being processing fee on 19.5.2017 vide receipt Ex.C-5, the connection in question was not shifted, as such he approached the officials of the OPs for the same, but the officials told the complainant that he can shift the connection in question at his own cost and as such the connection was shifted. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that he was never authorised to do so, more so when, it is an official matter and there is no one empowered to do so. Further the complainant has mentioned nothing in the complaint that who authorised the complainant to shift the connection in question. Further it is worth mentioning here that such connections are only shifted after depositing the necessary shifting charges as mentioned in the written reply i.e. an amount of Rs.14,878/- was recoverable from the complainant being the charges of estimate for shifting the connection. It is further worth mentioning here that it is the complainant himself, who shifted the connection in question on 4.6.2017, as is evident from his application dated 27.7.2017 on record as Ex.C-7. In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has himself shifted the tube well motor connection without the consent/approval of the OPs. Further there is nothing on record to show that the OPs ever authorised to shift the tubewell motor connection from khasra number 2187 to 2188. In the circumstances, we find no case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 6. In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records. Pronounced. January 4, 2018. (Sukhpal Singh Gill) President (Sarita Garg) Member