ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11, 12, 13 and 14 against the opposite party on the allegations that an electricity connection bearing account No. T61JR16/1372 M is installed in the house of the complainant situated in the area of village Jamarai, Tehsil Khadur Sahib, District Tarn Taran and complainant has been paying all the electricity bills regularly without any delay. All of sudden the complainant received a memo No. 855 dated 29.3.2018 in which it was mentioned that Rs. 18,172/- arrears of electricity connection No. SP39/0298 F on the name of some Jagtar Singh son of Lachman Singh, added in the account of complainant on the basis of checking report No. 40/7 dated 21.3.2018. No any checking was ever done by the opposite party. The complainant has no connection with said Jagtar Singh and his said electricity connection. The demand by the opposite party is illegal demand and the complainant is not liable to pay the same. The opposite party has violated the settled provisions of law. The complainant has requested the opposite party that the demand made by the corporation is illegal through letters dated 9.4.2018 and 19.6.2018, but the opposite party has refused and declined the requests of the complainant. Now the opposite party is demanding the amount in question through electricity bills of the complainant and is threatening to disconnect the electricity connection running on the name of the complainant and is also threatening to recover the illegal amount forcibly. The complainant has prayed that the opposite party may be directed not to recover the illegal amount of Rs. 24,286/- as mentioned the bill dated 8.10.2019 and not to disconnect the electricity connection in question. The complainant has prayed compensation and litigation expenses.  Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Memo dated 29.3.2018 Ex. C-2, Letter dated 19.6.2018 Ex. C-3, Letter dated 9.4.2018 Ex. C-4, Bill dated 8.10.2019 Ex. C-5.

2        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is filed against the non-existing person. There is no chairman of PSPCL. Moreover, if at all a wrong respondent has been impleaded then it necessary to get him served personally and cannot be served through anybody else. On Merits, it was pleaded that the connection mentioned in Para No. 3 of the complaint is installed in the same premises in which the connection No. SP-39/0298F in the name of Jagtar Singh son of Lashhman Singh was installed and the said Jagtar Singh was in arrear of Rs. 18,172/-. Since both the connections belong to the same premises and the complainant had taken the connection after disconnection of connection in name of Jagtar Singh, therefore, complainant is liable to make the payment of the same. Notice cum memo No. 855 dated 29.3.2018 was sent to the complainant but on his failure to do so the same is added in his bill. As provided in Regulation 35 of Supply Code, 2004 the complainant has to make payment of the bill amount and he can also make payment under protest and make representation to the same. Notice dated 29.32018 was duly served on the complainant but he did not submit any reply to the same and it shows that he has admitted the contents of the notice. The complainant should have taken recourse to provisions of Regulation 35 of Supply Code, 2014 and as per same it was obligatory for him to make payment of the bill even if he disputes its correctness and after payment he could put his representation as required. The complainant is under obligation to make payment of the consumption bill but he is avoiding the payment thereof without any sufficient reasons thereof. The opposite party has prayed that the present complaint be dismissed with costs. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party has placed on record self attested copy of affidavit of SDO PSPCL Fatehabad Ex. R-1, Copy of notice dated 29.3.2018 Ex. R.2, Copy of checking report dated 21.3.2018 Ex. R-3

3        We have heard the Ld. counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the documents on the file.

4        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is having electric connection bearing its account No. T61JR16/1372 M and same is installed in the house of the complainant. He further contended that the opposite party has added the amount of Rs. 18,172/- in his account which was installed in the name of one Jagtar Singh. He further contended that the opposite party cannot recover any amount of some other person from the complainant and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed. 

5        On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party contended that connection No. T61JR16/1372M is installed in the same premises in which the connection No. SP-39/0298F in the name of Jagtar Singh son of Lashhman Singh was installed. He further contended that Jagtar Singh was in arrear of Rs. 18,172/-. Since both the connections belong to the same premises and the complainant had taken the connection after disconnection of connection in name of Jagtar Singh, therefore, complainant is liable to make the payment of the same. He further contended that notice cum memo No. 855 dated 29.3.2018 was sent to the complainant but on his failure to do so the same is added in his bill. As provided in Regulation 35 of Supply Code, 2004 the complainant has to make payment of the bill amount. Notice dated 29.32018 was duly served on the complainant but he did not submit any reply to the same and it shows that he has admitted the contents of the notice. The complainant is under obligation to make payment of the consumption bill but he is avoiding the payment thereof without any sufficient reasons thereof and prayed that the present complaint be dismissed.

6        The complainant Navtej Singh is having domestic electricity connection bearing account No.T61JR16/1372M vide Bill Ex. C-3 whereas Jagtar Singh was having its account  No. SP39/0298F. The case of the opposite party is that amount of Rs. 18,172/- was due towards the account No. SP39/0298F. The opposite party has placed on record one document Ex. R-2 which is addressed to the complainant and on the Ex. R3 it is written that “irsko f;zx g[so bSwD f;zx fi;dh yVh oew 18172 o[g/ j? i/eo fJj g?;/ Bjh Go/ sK T[go fds/ yks/ dh nkdwh tZb' fJj irQk yqhd e/ BtK e[B?e;aB b? e/ fpibh ubk fojk j? fJ; T[go' fds/ yks/ ftZu fJj g?;/ ukoi eo bJ/ ikD ”

Moreover, in the written version, the opposite party has also pleaded that electricity connection of complaint is installed in the same premises in which the connection No. SP-39/0298F in the name of Jagtar Singh son of Lashhman Singh was installed and the said Jagtar Singh was in arrear of Rs. 18,172/-.   

The aforesaid discussion leads to the conclusion that the complainant is having domestic electricity connection bearing account No. T61JR16/1372M  whereas Jagtar Singh was having electricity connection  No. SP-39/0298F. It has been established on record that the arrears of that account SP-39/0298F have been added in the account of the complainant bearing account No. T61JR16/1372M. If the complainant was allotted new connection, then it was the duty of the Opposite Party to get the outstanding amount cleared first against the previous owner of the same premise.  Assuming, if said Jagtar Singh was in arrears then it was for the Opposite Party to effect the recovery  through any lawful way as prescribed under the rules from him. It is settled proposition of the law that any amount outstanding against one electricity connection cannot be added in the bill of another connection. We are strengthened by the view expressed in case Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Gurjit Kaur 2004(1) CLT-622.  We are of the view that by use of such type of the tactics of unfair trade practice amounts to put the consumer in embarrassing position. It is further important to mention here that the outstanding amount is against one Jagtar Singh. As such the complainant is not liable to make the payment of Rs. 18,172/- to the opposite party which is belonging to Jagtar Singh. The complainant has made so many visits to the office of Opposite party for to resolve the matter, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and the complainant was forced to file this complaint for the redressal of his grievances. Obviously, the complainant would have undergone mental harassment and agony and inconvenience without any reasonable cause.

9        In view of above discussion, we are of the view that the instant complaint has merits and the same is accepted. The demand of amount due towards Jagtar Singh from the complainant is hereby set aside. However, the Opposite Party is at liberty to recover the disputed amount, if any, from Jagtar Singh as per law/ rules.  The amount if any deposited by the complainant during the pendency of the present case either be adjusted in the next bills or refund to the complainant. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite party, the complainant is also entitled to Rs. 3,500/- (Rs. Three Thousand and Five hundred only)  as compensation on account of harassment and Rs. 3,000/-(Rs. Three thousand only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Party is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission

30.9.2021