Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Room No. 208 2^nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran

Consumer Complaint No  :  42 of 2017

Date of Institution                      : 19.06.2017

Date of Decision               : 06.08.2019

Ravinder Singh son of Shri Barkat Singh resident of Ward No. 6, Near Water Tank Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.

                                                ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Managing Director,
2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited, Sub Division Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran,
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited, Sub Division Urban Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.

…Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member

For Complainant                     Sh. Jagmeet Singh Bhullar Advocate

For Opposite Parties               Sh. A.K. Sharma Advocate

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant Ravinder Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Managing Director and another (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of opposite parties with prayer to restore the electricity supply of the domestic electric connection of the premises of the complainant. The opposite parties be directed not to add/ put any amount regarding the arrears of the earlier residents in to the account of the complainant forcibly and illegally and the opposite parties be also restrained from demanding more money from the complainant on the pretext of earlier residents in the above said premises and also prayed Rs. 50,000/- as damages and compensation.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties having electric domestic connection bearing its account No.3004624346 running with the name of the complainant Ravinder Singh. The above said domestic electric connection was installed in the month of February, 2017 in the premises of the complainant and since the date of its installation, the complainant is regularly paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties and nothing remains due to the opposite parties towards the complainant. At the time of getting the domestic electric connection in the premises, the complainant gave one affidavit to the opposite parties regarding payment for a sum of Rs.45,060/- as an arrears of the earlier residents of the above said premises and the same payment has also been made by the complainant to the opposite parties on 16.6.2017 and now nothing remains due of the opposite parties towards the complainant. The opposite parties forcibly and illegally have disconnected the domestic electric connection of the complainant for which they have got no right to do so. The complainant has asked many a times to the opposite parties to accept the genuine claim of complainant and not to demand any more amount from the complainant qua the arrears of earlier residents. The complainant has also been asked many a times not to add/put any amount to the account of the complainant regarding the arrears of earlier resident, but they did not pay any heed to it. The complainant has also been asked many a times to the opposite party No.3 not to raise any demand of more money from the complainant regarding the alleged arrears, but he has paid no heed to it for which he has got no right to do so and the opposite parties have finally, flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant and disconnected the electric connection of the complainant on 16.06.2017 at 5.00 P.M.  Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite parties. 

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties appeared through counsel filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant has suppressed so many material facts from this Forum and has not approached with clean hands in this Forum. The complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. The present complaint is an abuse of process of court and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is a wrong doer and is not entitled to any relief. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention with ulterior motive with intent to harass the opposite parties.  On merits, the opposite parties have admitted that the complainant is consumer of the opposite parties and have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4        In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 alognwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-13 and closed the evidence. The opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit Satish Bansal AE City Sub Division Patti Ex. OPs/1 alongwith documents Ex. OPs/2 to Ex. OPs/11 and closed the evidence.   

5        We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the complainant and opposite parties and have gone through the documents placed on the file by the parties.

6        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties having electric domestic connection bearing its account No.3004624346 running with the name of the complainant Ravinder Singh. The above said domestic electric connection was installed in the month of February, 2017 in the premises of the complainant. He further contended that since the date of its installation, the complainant is regularly paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties and nothing remains due to the opposite parties towards the complainant. At the time of getting the domestic electric connection in the premises, the complainant gave one affidavit to the opposite parties regarding payment for a sum of Rs.45,060/- as an arrears of the earlier residents of the above said premises. He further contended that same payment has also been made by the complainant to the opposite parties on 16.6.2017 and now nothing remains due of the opposite parties towards the complainant. The opposite parties forcibly and illegally have disconnected the domestic electric connection of the complainant. The complainant has asked many a times to the opposite parties to accept the genuine claim of complainant and not to demand any more amount from the complainant qua the arrears of earlier residents. The complainant has also been asked many a times not to add/put any amount to the account of the complainant regarding the arrears of earlier residents,  but they did not pay any heed to it. The complainant has also been asked many a times to the opposite party No.3 not to raise any demand of more money from the complainant regarding the alleged arrears, but he has paid no heed to it and disconnected the electric connection of the complainant on 16.06.2017 at 5.00 P.M and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed. The complainant has placed on record Bill Ex. C-2  dated 17.9.2013 which is in the name of Sajjan Singh, C-3 its receipt,  Bill dated 11.5.2017 Ex. C-4 which is in the name of complainant (Ravinder Singh), receipt of the same is Ex. C-5, the complainant has placed on record another Bill in the name of complainant Ravinder Singh Ex. C-6, another Bill dated 13.9.2017 Ex. C-7 in the name of Ravinder Singh, receipt of the same is Ex. C-8. Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite parties have issued one memo No. 370 dated 26.6.2017 Ex. C-11 to Barkat Vohra regarding the amount of Rs. 1,18,492/- and it is alleged in the application that he has made the payment of Rs. 45,060/- out of the same. Vide Ex. C-11 the opposite parties directed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 73,432/- within two days. Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the office Number on the memo Ex. C-11 by the opposite party is given on 26.6.2017, however, the said letter was posted before 6 days i.e. 20.6.2017 vide Ex. C-6. Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that it creates doubt in the working of the opposite parties.  During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the connection of the complainant is now running at the spot.

7        Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant has suppressed so many material facts from this Forum and has not approached with clean hands in this Forum. The complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. The present complaint is an abuse of process of court and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is a wrong doer and is not entitled to any relief. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention with ulterior motive with intent to harass the opposite parties. The opposite parties have admitted that the complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that the amount mentioned in the bill was of Sajjan Singh in the premises in dispute and the complainant is liable for the same. The opposite parties have placed on record receipt for depositing an amount of Rs. 45,060/- Ex. OPs/2, Bill dated 11.5.2017 Ex. OPs/3, receipt dated 16.6.2017 Ex. OPs/4, Bill dated 15.7.2017 Ex. OPs/5,  Bill dated 13.9.2017 Ex. OPs/6, Receipt dated 26.9.2017 Ex. OPs/7 Bill dated 21.6.2017 Ex. OPs/8, Memo No. 370 dated 26.6.2017 Ex. OPs/9,  Postal receipt of the same dated 20.6.2017 Ex. OPs/10 and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

8        The complainant Ravinder Singh is having domestic electricity connection bearing account No.3004624346  vide Bill Ex. C-4 whereas Sajjan Singh is having its account  No. Old T42JR620647F and new account No. 3000259053.The case of the opposite party is that amount of Rs. 1,18,492 was due towards the account No. JR62/0647 out of which an amount of Rs. 45,060/- has been deposited on 16.6.2017 and now an amount of Rs. 73,432/- is due against the above said connection vide Ex. OPs/9. In Ex OPs/9, it is stated that said amount will be added in the account of Ravinder Singh installed in the same premises. The aforesaid discussion leads to the conclusion that the complainant is having domestic electricity connection bearing account No. 3004624346 whereas Sajjan Singh is having electricity connection  No. Old T42JR620647F and new account No. 3000259053. It has been established on record that the arrears of that account Old T42JR620647F and new account No. 3000259053 have been added in the new account of the complainant bearing account No. 3004624346. If the complainant was allotted new connection, then it was the duty of the Opposite Parties at the time of issuing new electricity connection to ensure that no arrears was outstanding against the previous consumer of the same premises. As noticed above, it has been mentioned above that the Opposite Parties have not come up with the relevant record. Assuming if said Sajjan Singh was in arrears then  it was for the Opposite Parties  to effect the recovery  through any lawful way as prescribed under the rules. 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. On the other hand, no rule, regulation/ instructions or law has been shown by the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties  that the arrears of other consumer could be added in the bill of another consumer.  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 of the amount is against one Sajjan Singh and Memo Ex. OPs/9 is issued to one Barkat Singh and amount of said Sajjan Singh is added in the account of Ravinder Singh complainant. Moreover, the opposite parties have sent Memo No. 370 dated 26.6.2017 vide postal 20.6.2017, which itself creates the doubt in the work of the opposite parties. Moreover, the complainant has made so many visits to the office of Opposite Parties for correction of his account, but the Opposite Parties 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 arrears due towards Sajjan Singh from the complainant is hereby set aside. The Opposite Parties are directed to issue the fresh bill to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption excluding the aforementioned amount of arrears of Sajjan Singh and correct its record accordingly. However, the Opposite Parties are at liberty to recover the disputed amount, if any, from Sajjan 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. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only)  as compensation on account of harassment and Rs. 3,500 (Rs. Three Thousand and five hundred only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are 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.