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

Consumer Complaint No  :  37 of 2018

Date of Institution                      : 13.04.2018

Date of Decision               : 04.04.2019

Balwinder Kaur aged about 52 years wife of Jagir Singh resident of village Jeobala Tehsil and District Tarn Taran at present resident of village Kaka Kandiala Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.

                                                ...Complainant

Versus

1. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Sub Division (Rural) Tarn Taran,
2. X.E.N. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Sub Division (Rural) Tarn Taran,
3. Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Patiala.

…Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member

                             Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member

For Complainant                     Sh. M.P. Arora Advocate

For Opposite Parties               Sh. K.S. Virk Advocate

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant Balwidner Kaur has filed the present complaint under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Sub Division( Rural) Tarn Taran and others (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of opposite parties with prayer to install the meter in the premises of the complainant immediately and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that Balwinder Kaur alongwith Malkiat Kaur w/o Hira Singh and Kulwinder Kaur w/o Hardeep Singh residents of village Jeobala Tehsil and District Tarn Taran purchased a plot consisting of rooms, bathroom, Kitchen and latrine etc. at village Kaka Kandiala Tehsil and District Tarn Taran on dated 25.10.2012 from Malkait Singh so of Kirpal Singh son of Kehar Singh, resident of village Kad-Gill Tehsil and District Tarn Taran alongwith electricity meter installed in the plot. The Electricity meter is on the name of Malkiat Singh son of Kirpal Singh bearing Khata No.30001011251 and prior to purchase of the above said plot, the bills were being paid by the said Malkiat Singh and after the purchase of the above said plot by me, the electricity bills have been fully paid by us to the PSPCL and nothing is due towards us to the corporation. Now about 20/25 days ago, employees of PSPCL Sub Division Tarn Taran without any notice or information have disconnected the electric meter and have taken the meter from the plot. The opposite party without any reason is harassing the complainant who is the consumer of the Opposite party.  Due to removing and taking the electricity meter by the opposite party, the complainant cause, physical, mental as well as monetary loss and harassment, as such, the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation amount to the complainant up to Rs. 10,000/-. This act of the opposite parties constitutes deficiency in services, unfair trade practice. Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite parties.  Alongwith the complaint the complainant has placed on record copy of Adhar card Ex. C-1, copy of application Ex. C-2, Copy of Bill Ex. C-3, the copy of registered sale deed Ex. C-4,  Affidavit of complainant Ex. C-5.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and filed written version taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and opposite parties have established Consumer Disputes Redressal Committees at Circle Level and Zonal Level. The complainant should submit her grievances before these committees to resolve her grievances. The complaint is not consumer of opposite parties. She has purchased the premises from Malkiat Singh hence Malkiat Singh is Consumer of opposite parties. She has no right title to file the complaint. No agreement is executed between the opposite parties and complainant. The complainant suppressed the material facts from this Forum. The complaint should be dismissed on this score only. In actual position according to record of PSPCL that Malkiat Singh was defaulter of Rs. 50,864/-. The complainant never disclosed this fact before this Forum. It is well settled law that purchaser of premises is responsible to clear the outstanding defaulting amount of premises of Consumer and she is at fault. On merits, it was pleaded that the meter of Malkiat Singh was removed due to defaulting amount of Rs. 50,864/-.  The competent authority has power to remove the meter of defaulting person. The consumer of the opposite party is defaulter, consumer is liable to pay this amount of Rs. 50,846/- or otherwise to face the removing of meter. Defaulter consumer cannot claim compensation and denied the other contents of the complaint and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.   Alogwith the written version, the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of SDO/ PSPCL Ex. OPs/1, List of defaulter outstanding Ex. OPs/2.

4        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on the file by the parties.

5        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant Balwinder Kaur purchased a plot consisting of rooms, bathroom, Kitchen and latine etc. at village Kaka Kandiala Tehsil and District Tarn Taran on dated 25.10.2012 from Malkait Singh so of Kirpal Singh son of Kehar Singh, resident of village Kad-Gill Tehsil and District Tarn Taran alongwith electricity meter installed in the plot vide sale deed Ex. C-4. He further contended that the Electricity meter is on the name of Malkiat Singh son of Kirpal Singh bearing Khata No.30001011251 and prior to purchase of the above said plot, the bills were being paid by the said Malkiat Singh and after the purchase of the above said plot by the complainant, the electricity bills have been fully paid by the complainant to the PSPCL and nothing is due towards us to the corporation. He further contended that now about 20/25 ago from filing the present complaint, employees of PSPCL Sub Division Tarn Taran without any notice or information have disconnected the electric meter and have taken the meter from the plot. He further contended that the opposite party without any reason is harassing the complainant who is the consumer of the Opposite party.  Ld. counsel for the complainant prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.

6        On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable and opposite parties have established Consumer Disputes Redressal Committees at Circle Level and Zonal Level. The complainant should submit her grievances before these committees to resolve her grievances. He further contended that the complaint is not consumer of opposite parties. She has purchased the premises from Malkiat Singh hence Malkiat Singh is Consumer of opposite parties. She has no right title to file the complaint. No agreement is executed between the opposite parties and complainant. The complainant suppressed the material facts from this Forum. The complaint should be dismissed on this score only. In actual position according to record of PSPCL that Malkiat Singh was defaulter of Rs. 50,864/-. The complainant never disclosed this fact before this Forum. It is well settled law that purchaser of premises is responsible to clear the outstanding defaulting amount of premises of Consumer and she is at fault. The meter of Malkiat Singh was removed due to defaulting amount of Rs. 50,864/-.  The competent authority has power to remove the meter of defaulting person. The consumer of the opposite party is defaulter, consumer is liable to pay this amount of Rs. 50,846/- or otherwise to face the removing of meter. Defaulter consumer cannot claim compensation. Ld. counsel for the opposite party prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed with heavy costs. The opposite party has placed reliance on Kakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs M/s Paramound Polymetrs Pvt. Ltd. SC 396

7        The objection of the opposite party is that the complainant is not consumer of the opposite party. Rather the complainant has placed on record sale deed Ex. C-4 which is dated 25.10.2012 and the complainant is using the connection in question since the date of its purchase and is making the payment of electricity bills to the opposite party regarding its consumption. As such, the  complainant is beneficiary of the connection in question and the objection of the opposite party qua this point is refuted.

8        Now the question arises whether the opposite party is competent to recover the amount of Malkiat Singh vendor of the complainant from the complainant or not. The stand of the opposite party is that Malkiat Singh is defaulter of the meter in question, therefore, the connection in question has been disconnected.  It is submitted by the opposite party that the connection in question has been disconnecting due to defaulter of Malkiat Singh.  Firstly prior to disconnecting the connection in question, it is obligatory on the part of the opposite party to issue notice to the complainant explaining the reasons for outstanding and regarding disconnection. However, no such notice has been placed on record to indicate that the complainant was duly served with the notice as required. Secondly, the opposite party has pleaded in the written version that the above said outstanding is of Malkiat Singh. The complainant has placed on record sale deed Ex. C-4 which is dated 25.10.2012. As per allegations of the opposite party that the said amount is of Malkiat Singh, previous owner of the house, then it is prior to the 25.10.2012.

9        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that argued that as per Electricity Supply Instruction Manual of opposite party where regulation No. 93 is regarding payment of arrears not originally billed. Relevant regulation is reproduced hereunder:

Payment of Arrears not Originally Billed : 93.1 There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/ unauthorized use of electricity or demand / load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff/ multiplication factor or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices etc. In all such cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges shall be shown as arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills shall be issued separately giving complete details of the charges in regard to theft cases, slowness of meters, wrong connection of the meter and unauthorized use of electricity etc. In such cases, the copy of relevant instructions under which the charges have been levied shall also be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of cases by consumer forums if approached by the consumer.

93.2 Limitation: Under Section 56(2) of the Act, no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two year from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied.

10      The complainant has put reliance on citation 2016 (2) Consumer Law Today 429 titled as “Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Others Vs Dinesh Sharma” wherein it is held that Electricity-Sundry charges cannot be charged without show cause notice to complainant. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-electricity-Sundry charges added in electricity bill of complainant-Held-No show cause notice issued to the complainant before imposing penalty-OPs have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant-In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the Electricity Act and it is deficiency in service-Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case. Para 7-The appellants have failed to show any notice issued to the complainant before imposing the penalty. Our Hon’ble High Court has also opined in “Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447” that notice is required before imposing the penalty and an order about person who was likely to be affected thereby. Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that before raising the demand of amount in question and before disconnecting the connection of the complainant, the opposite parties did not issue any notice giving the detail of the amount charged and without issuing any notice they cannot be charged any amount as arrears or whatsoever. Moreover as per version of the opposite party that the said amount relates to Malkiat Singh and said Malkiat Singh has sold the property where the connection in question is installed in the year 2012 i.e. after more than two years. As per their own regulations of the opposite parties, they cannot raise any demand after a period of two years such sum become due. As such, such demand is beyond the period of limitation and the opposite parties cannot disconnect the connection of the complainant on the basis of such dues prior to the year 2012.

11      Further as per their own regulations and instructions, opposite party cannot charge any amount of previous dues or arrears without giving any supplementary bill or notice giving complete detail of charges and also giving copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied. They cannot disconnect the connection of the complainant on the basis of arrears/ dues of more than 2 years and in the present case, the opposite party have failed to produce any evidence or document which proves that they issued any supplementary bill or notice giving complete and full detail of the defaulting amount. Therefore, we are fully convinced with the arguments and case law produced by complainant. It also creates doubt on the part of the opposite party why they remain mum for a long period of 6/7 years.  The Judgments produced by the opposite party are giving no help to the opposite party, as the same are on the different facts and circumstances.