The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid cause of action to file an appeal, and the court's reliance on the interpretation of ownership rights and the duty of the distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003.

ORDER

Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member - The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 630 dated 7.10.2010 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to the OP to implement its order regarding shifting of the electricity connection of the complainant after taking the Police assistance in the event of raising any obstruction in the discharge of their official duties.

2. The complaint was filed by the complainant-Kirpal Singh (hereinafter called "the complainant") on the allegations that electricity connection No. APM3-147 was installed in the name of the complainant in Village Jhugian Gulam, Tehsil and District Kapurthala since long. The complainant was having civil dispute with one Kewal Singh. On 24.9.2008, said Kewal Singh along with his companions had removed the PVC wire through which the electricity was being supplied to the electric motor of the complainant from the pole. The complainant immediately reported the matter to the OP/respondent vide application dated 24.9.2008 with further request to initiate legal action against said Kewal Singh and its inquiry was got conducted from J.E. Harjinder Singh, who assured the complainant that the electricity will be restored to the complainant. However, the respondent being hand in glove with the said Kewal Singh had not taken any action against said Kewal Singh nor restored the electricity supply to the complainant. Accordingly, he moved the application to S.E. Kapurthala on 25.5.2009. Since, it was paddy season and he was in urgent need of electricity, therefore, he moved a complaint before the District Forum and Mr. K.S. Bawa, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent/OP and assured to restore the supply within 1-2 days, accordingly, the complaint was withdrawn but it was a knife in disguise and the matter was lingered on and it was found that J.E. Harjinder Singh in relation with said Kewal Singh. The respondent informed the complainant that he will have to deposit amount for PVC wire charges and complainant deposited Rs. 1,250 even then connection was not restored by the respondent. The respondent again demanded to deposit a sum of Rs. 3750 and the same was also deposited but the connection was not restored till date. Hence, the complaint with the direction to the OP to restore the electricity connection; pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 7500 as litigation expenses.

3. The complaint was contested by the OP, who filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the complaint. In fact the complainant had requested the respondent to shift the connection and promised to deposit the shifting fee and vide letter No. 867 dated 7.7.2009, the complainant was requested to deposit a sum of Rs. 1250 and the same was deposited, the estimate was prepared and after that vide letter No, 1292 dated 13.10.2009 the complainant deposited the amount and was asked to deposit another amount of Rs. 3750 and the complainant deposited the said amount and SJO No. 165/39949 for shifting of the connection was issued. Accordingly, J.E. Harjinder Singh along with other staff visited the spot for shifting of the connection, however, Balwinder Singh s/o Kewal Singh present at the site, thrown away the said cable and threatened that he will not allow to install the cable and a letter was written to SHO of P.S. Fattudhinga to take action against said Balwinder Singh. On merits, it has been again reiterated that the, complainant had moved an application for shifting of the connection and filed the complaint on those lines but the same was withdrawn on the plea that he never applied for shifting of the connection. Other averments as stated above were also reiterated on merits.

4. Th