Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran
Consumer Complaint No : 02 of 2021
Date of Institution : 11.01.2021
Date of Decision : 28.07.2021
Kamaljit Kaur aged 68 years w/o Harjinder Singh Arora resident of Gali Darshan Singh Wali, Railway Road, Tarn Taran Tehsil and District Tarn Taran UID No. 3466 1547 4350 through her husband Harjinder Singh Arora son of Ajit Singh who has right to pursue the present complaint vide authority letter dated 5.1.2021 so executed by Karamjit Kaur.
…..Complainant
Versus
- S.D.O Punjab State Powers Corporation Ltd. Sub Division (Urban) Tarn Taran Tehsil and District Tarn Taran,
- X.E.N. Punjab State Powers Corporation Ltd. Tarn Taran.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 34, 35, 36 & 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu Member
For Complainant Sh. Harjinder Singh Arora representative
For Opposite Parties Sh. K.M. Gupta Advoate
ORDERS:
Charanjit Singh, President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Section 34, 35, 36 and 38 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019(herein after called as 'the Act') against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is a law abiding citizen of India and she is the permanent resident of the address as stated above. The complainant is having one domestic electric connection having account No. 3000637559 installed at her house Gali Darshan Singh Wali, Railway Road, Tarn Taran. The said domestic connection is on the name of Davinder Kaur. The said Davinder Kaur sold her house to one Smt. Dimple w/o Birinder Singh son of Jandiala Road Tarn Taran who further sold the same to the complainant vide registered sale deed dated 24.5.2011 for the valuable consideration. The above said vendor Dimple did not get transferred the ownership of electric connection in question on her name and the said connection is still running on the name of Davinder Kaur. Now the complainant is residing in the above said house alongwith her family members since its purchase and is using the electricity connection in question with the name of Davinder Kaur. The complainant also tried to make communication with the above said Davinder Kaur to transfer the electricity connection on her name but she has left the city so the complainant could not transfer the electricity connection on her name. The complainant is consumer of the opposite parties and had been regularly paying the electricity bills for the electricity consumed by her. In the month of February 2019, complainant received a bill to the tune of Rs. 18,970/- and it was astonished for the complainant as the same was more than the actual consumption of the complainant. After that the complainant moved an application for getting information under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the department of opposite parties, who stated in the reply of that application that the department added amount of Rs. 14940/- as balance of consumer and the same came after the completion of sap system of the PSPCL in the connection of the complainant. Then the complainant has paid bill for actual consumption of power i.e. Rs. 4030/- except the amount Rs.14940/- which was illegally added by the opposite parties in the bill of the complainant. The said illegal amount of Rs. 14,940/- was added in the bill of the complainant without serving any notice to her. The complainant is not liable to pay said illegal amount as well as surcharges which was and will be added by the opposite parties, as the complainant was and is regularly paying her power consumption bill. The opposite parties through their representatives is giving threats to recover the said amount forcibly and illegally for which they have got no right to do so. The complainant is no way liable to pay the same. The complainant approached and requested the opposite parties personally and also moved written application bearing No. 2657 dated 18.3.2019 to the opposite party No. 1 to admit the claim of the complainant and not to add the said illegal amount in her bill but the opposite parties declined the request of the complainant. The complainant also moved application to the Higher Authorities of PSPCL. The complainant has prayed that the present complain may be allowed by granting the following relieves in favour of complainant.
- The opposite parties may kindly be directed to rectify/ modify the electricity bill so sent by the PSPCL by adding said illegal amount of Rs. 14940/- as the complainant is not liable to pay the false electricity amount.
- The opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation as well as Rs. 15000/- litigation expenses for causing harassment to the complainant by demanding illegal amount in the interest of justice.
- Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to that may also be granted in his favour under the law and equity.
Alongwith the present complaint, the complainant has placed on file Self attested affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, Self attested Bill of month Feb, 2019 Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of reply to application under RTI Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of application dated 18.3.2019 Ex. C-4, Self attested coy of application dated 17.4.2019 Ex. C.5, Self attested copy of application dated 3.1.2020 Ex. C-6, Self attested copy of sale deed dated 24.5.2011 Ex.C-7, Self attested copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-8, Self attested copy of Adhar Card of authorized person Ex. C-9, Self attested copy of authority letter Ex. C-10.
2 After formal admission of the complaint, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that Harjinder Singh Arora alleging to have an authority letter from Smt. Kamaljit Kaur has got no legal and valid right and locus standi to file the present complaint as he is not covered under the definition of complainant. Even the affidavit of Harjinder Singh Arora supported with the complaint is not legal. The alleged authority letter is not attested by any competent authority. This complaint is defective on this ground and is liable to be dismissed. The connection in dispute is not in the name of complainant but is in the name of Smt. Davinder Kaur and as admitted in Para No. 2 of the complaint and as provisions of clause 30.3 of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual 2018 and specifically clause 30.4 provides that in event of transfer of a property the transferee shall submit an application in prescribed form alongwith consent of previous owner for transfer of connection, proof of ownership and deposit of security consumption and security meter. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On Merits, it was pleaded that the connection is not in her name and is in the name of Smt. Davinder Kaur, till the filing of the present complaint and it clearly shows that complainant is not the consumer of the disputed electricity connection which is the subject matter of the present complaint. It is clearly provided in clause 30.4 of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual 2018, (clause C) though the transferee shall be liable to pay the outstanding dues if any of the previous consumer. The bill itself is a notice under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act 2003, Electricity Supply Code and related matter clause 39 and it is so mentioned on the back of the consumption bill. No separate notice is required. The complainant cannot claim any notice as complainant is not the consumer of the Opposite parties as per record. The complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties has placed on record affidavit of Narinder Singh SDO Ex. OPR1 alongwith documents Ex. OPR2 to Ex. OPR4.
3 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and also carefully gone through the record.
4 The complainant contended that she has filed the present case through her husband / representative and she has placed on record authority letter dated 5.1.2021 which is attached herewith as Ex. C-10. The case of the complainant is that she is having one domestic electricity connection bearing account No. 3000637559 and said connection is standing in the name of Davinder Kaur. Davinder Kaur sold her house where the said connection is installed in favour of one Dimple and said Dimple sold the said house in favour of complainant vide sale deed Ex. C-7. It is also contended by the complainant that she is using the said connection and is paying the electricity charges to the opposite party. It is also contended by the complainant that in the month of February 2019, complainant received a bill to the tune of Rs. 18,970/-. The complainant moved an application for getting information under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the department of opposite parties and reply to that application, the opposite parties have stated that the department added amount of Rs. 14940/- as balance of consumer of the year 2014 and the same came after the completion of sap system of the PSPCL in the connection of the complainant and the reply to RTI by opposite parties is Ex. C-3. Then the complainant has paid bill for actual consumption of power i.e. Rs. 4030/- except the amount Rs.14940/-. It is further contended that the said illegal amount of Rs. 14,940/- was added in the bill of the complainant without serving any notice to her. The complainant is not liable to pay said illegal amount as well as surcharges which was and will be added by the opposite parties, as the complainant was and is regularly paying her power consumption bill. The complainant approached and requested the opposite parties personally and also moved written application bearing No. 2657 dated 18.3.2019 Ex. C-4 to the opposite party No. 1 to admit the claim of the complainant and not to add the said illegal amount in her bill but the opposite parties declined the request of the complainant and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
5 Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that Harjinder Singh Arora alleging to have an authority letter from Smt. Kamaljit Kaur has got no legal and valid right and locus standi to file the present complaint as he is not covered under the definition of complainant. Even the affidavit of Harjinder Singh Arora supported with the complaint is not legal. The alleged authority letter is not attested by any competent authority. This complaint is defective on this ground and is liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that the connection in dispute is not in the name of complainant but is in the name of Smt. Davinder Kaur and as admitted in Para No. 2 of the complaint and as provisions of clause 30.3 of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual 2018 and specifically clause 30.4 provides that in event of transfer of a property the transferee shall submit an application in prescribed form alongwith consent of previous owner for transfer of connection, proof of ownership and deposit of security consumption and security meter. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that it is clearly provided in clause 30.4 of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual 2018, (clause C) (Ex. OPR-3) though the transferee shall be liable to pay the outstanding dues if any of the previous consumer. The bill itself is a notice under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act 2003, Electricity Supply Code and related matter clause 39 and it is so mentioned on the back of the consumption bill. No separate notice is required. The complainant cannot claim any notice as complainant is not the consumer of the Opposite parties as per record and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.
6 The objection taken by the opposite parties is that Harjinder Singh Arora has no legal and valid right and locus standi to file the present complaint on behalf of Karamjit Kaur. Karamjit Kaur is wife of Harjinder Singh Arora and she has given the authority letter dated 5.1.2021 Ex. C-10 which is duly signed by her. Moreover, we cannot dismiss the present complaint solely on the ground that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant through her representative Harjinder Singh Arora her husband. Harjinder Singh Arora is the husband of the complainant and he is well conversant with the facts of the case and hence there is no bar in proving the facts through family member of the complainant, who has been given authority letter by her. The general law is that a person has to depose the facts before the court, which are in his personal knowledge, whereas his attorney can prove this facts, which are in his knowledge on behalf of the principal. The Apex Court has also held in Man Kaur (dead) by LRs. versus Hartar Singh Sangha reported in (2010) 10 SC 512 by elaborately dealing with this controversy in cases where the agent gives evidence on behalf of the principal. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in this authority that an attorney holder who has signed the plaint and instituted the suit, but has no personal knowledge of the transaction can only give formal evidence, which has to be relied upon. In the case in hand, the authorized person is husband of complainant and it cannot be said that he has no personal knowledge of the matter in this case. The authorized person can well depose on behalf of the principal being husband of the principal in view of the special circumstances that he has developed personal knowledge of the facts being family member of the principal. Consequently, we hold that complainant is proved to be consumer of OP and complaint before this Commission is maintainable. Same view has been taken by our State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh in Consumer complaint No. 142/2017 titled Narinder Singh Vs RKM Housing Ltd.
7 The other objection of the opposite parties is that the connection in dispute is not in the name of complainant but is in the name of Smt. Davinder Kaur and the complainant is not maintainable. As the complainant has placed on record sale deed dated 24.5.2011 Ex. C-7 which is executed by Dimple in favour of complainant. This shows that the property where the connection in question is installed has been purchased by the complainant since the year 2011 and since the year 2011 the complainant is using the electricity through connection in question and is paying the consumption bills regularly, hence, the complainant is beneficiary and is consumer of the opposite party.
8 In the present complaint, the complainant has challenged the amount of Rs. 14,940/- and the opposite parties in its reply has stated that the transferee shall be liable to pay the outstanding dues if any of the previous consumer and to support its version, the opposite parties have placed on record copy of Electricity Supply instructions as Ex. OPR3. But the complainant has placed on record one letter No. 158 dated 20.2.2019 written by SDO PSPCL City Tarn Taran Ex. C-3 in which regarding the amount in question, the opposite parties have given reply as follows:-
oew ukoi eoB dk ekoB nkg d/ yks/ B{z ;?g f;;Nw ftZu fwsh 27^11^2014 B{z 14940 o[gJ/ dh nwkT[AN fpBQK fe;/ ekoB foto; eo fdZsh rJh. j[D id'A fJ; dcso dk nkfvN j'fJnk T[; ;w/A fJj oew nkfvN gkoNh d[nkok nkg d/ yks/ B{z ukoi eo fdZsh.
This shows that the amount in question is prior to the year 2014. The perusal of Bil Ex. C-2 shows amount of Rs. 14940/- in the column of Sundry charges. The opposite parties are claiming the amount as arrears. But the opposite parties have failed to produce on record any document showing the amount in question as arrears of bills of the complainant. As per Electricity Supply Instruction Manual of opposite parties where regulation No. 93 is regarding payment of arrears. 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.
9 The opposite parties have shown an amount of Rs. 14,940/- as Sundry charges in the in the bill in question. The complainant contended that the opposite parties have not given detail of the Sundry charges before adding the same in the bill in question. The complainant contended that no show cause notice before adding the said amount in the Sundry charges has been issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. 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.
10 Further as per their own regulations and instructions, opposite parties 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 parties 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 points discussed by complainant. It also creates doubt on the part of the opposite parties why they remain mum for a long period. The act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service.
11 In view of above discussion, there is merit in the present complaint and the same is accepted and demand of opposite parties of Rs. 14,940/- in the shape of Sundry charges in bill dated 5.2.2019 Ex. C-2 is hereby set aside. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties, 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 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.
Announced in Open Commission.
28.07.2021
