Complainant Kulwant Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties not to recover Rs.31,870/- alongwith surcharge shown in the disputed bill and not to disconnect his electric supply and demand of the opposite party may kindly be quashed. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses to him.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing Account No.G 14MF-351050M and has been paying the electricity bills regularly and as such he is the consumer of the opposite parties. He has further pleaded that opposite party has issued a electricity bill dated 29.4.2014 in which Rs.31,870/- included as illegal demand. In this bill consumption of 1592 units has been shown which is very excessive than the actual use. He consumed only 313 units. His previous reading was 196 units. He approached to the office of the opposite party and requested them to explain how this high units is shown in the bill dated 29.4.2014 but they did not give any satisfactory reply and the act of the opposite party showing excess reading in the bill than the actual use amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply. It was submitted that the opposite party has issued bill dated 29.4.2014 by including an amount of Rs.30,002/- alongwith current consumption charges. There was another domestic electric connection running in the name of Swaran Singh son of Sawan Singh resident of village Jaito Sarja which bears its Account No.MF-35-0063. The said Swaran Singh was the father of present complainant Kulwant Singh. That connection was disconnected due to non payment of consumption charges amounting to Rs.30,002/- vide PDCO dated 12.4.2008. Said Swaran Singh died about 15-16 years ago and the said connection was being used by Kulwant Singh. After disconnection of that connection so many notices were served upon the consumer but none paid heed to it. The J.E. revealed that the said amount standing in the name of Swaran Singh that can be recovered from his real son Kulwant Singh. Due to this reason this amount was added in the Account No.MF-35-1050M of the complainant in the month of April, 2014. Even otherwise it is the Civil liability of the complainant Kulwant Singh to pay the debts standing in the name of his father Swaran Singh and as such the complainant Kulwant Singh is bound to make the payment of Rs.30,002/- to opposite party department. This amount has been rightly entered in the account of the complainant Kulwant Singh. Many notices have been given to the complainant Kulwant Singh to deposit the said amount of Rs.30,002/- but when he ultimately failed to deposit the same, it was included in his account. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Satnam Singh Buttar S.D.O. PSPCL Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. Complainant has produced on record photo copy of the bill dated 29.4.2014 Ex.C-2 in which opposite party demanded Rs.31,870/-. Opposite party in its written version submitted that earlier one electric connection bearing Account No.MF-35-0063 was running in the name of Swaran Singh son of Sawan Singh in the same premises and the outstanding amount of Rs.30,002/- is still standing against the connection bearing No.MF-35-0063. Sh.Swaran Singh was father of the complainant and the complainant got new connection in the same premises. It is well settled law that a new connection is not released to a consumer until previous arrears are cleared by the previous connection holder. It has not been made clear by the opposite party as to under what law and under which rules and regulations they are seeking to recover the amount of Rs.30,002/- clearly pertaining to electric connection bearing account No.MF-35-0063. It has not been explained by the opposite party as to why they remained dormant and in deep slumber and suddenly waked up to illegally add the amount pertaining to electric connection bearing account No.MF-35-0063 in the electric connection bearing account No. G 14MF-351050M installed in the property where earlier connection bearing No.MF-35-0063 was installed. In our considered opinion complainant cannot be burdened with this amount. We draw support from IV(2004) CLT 622 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case ‘Punjab State Electricity Board Versus Garjit Kaur’ that:-
“No law shown which permitted the amount outstanding against one connection that could be added in the bill of another connection if the demanded related to the same consumer.”
It is further stated in para No.7 of this judgment that :-
“It is an admitted case of the parties that the demand in dispute related to another connection bearing account No. CF 75/0487 and the same was added to the account of the complainant. The demand made by the opposite parties related to the connection, which was in the name of Surya Kiran A.C. Market Welfare Society. The said amount under the rules of the opposite party itself as has not been denied by the learned counsel for the appellants could not be added to the account of the complainant. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. All these appeals, namely, Appeal Nos. 746 to 753 of 2003 are, thus, dismissed in limini. It is, however, ordered that the opposite parties are at liberty to demand and secure the payment with regard to the energy consumed from any other consumer from whom it is due.”
8. When the facts of the present case are viewed in the light of the law laid down in the case law discussed in the preceding paragraph, it becomes amply clear that the demand raised by the opposite party pertaining to electric connection bearing account No.MF-35-0063 and sought to be charged against electric connection bearing account No. G 14MF-351050M is manifestly unjust and illegal and such a demand is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
9. In view of the above discussion, complaint is partly allowed and demand raised by the opposite party in respect of the electric connection bearing account No.MF-35-0063 in the name of Swaran Singh son of Sawan Singh from the complainant is hereby set-aside. Opposite party would also pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. In case complainant has paid any amount out of the impugned amount during the pendency of the proceedings, that is ordered to be refunded forthwith. Compliance of the orders be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of orders; failing which proceedings u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act would be initiated against the opposite party.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (G.B.S.Bhullar) (Jagdeep Kaur)
January,23 2015 Member Member
*MK*
