Complainant Kulwnder 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 to delete the illegal demand of Rs.27,164/- raised vide memo dated 31.3.2015 and also to pay the damages amounting to Rs.60,000/- to him, in the interest of justice.

 2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has installed an electric connection in his house for domestic purpose bearing Account No.G18BB361325. He has been paying the consumption bills regularly to the opposite parties. Another electric connection bearing No.BB360296 H was separately installed in the name of Narinjan Singh son of Maghar Singh in the same village. He was neither surety holder nor he had got any right, title and interest in the said connection. Said Narinjan Singh has already expired on or about 4.5.2008. The opposite party no.2 alleged that huge amount was due and payable by said Narinjan Singh after his death the opposite party no.2 had pressurized him to deposit the amount which is due and payable by the said Narinjan Singh. However, he under duress, coercion and pressure deposited a sum of Rs.12,000/- with the opposite party no.2 vide receipt no.395 dated 25.1.2013. He has received a notice/memo no.333 dated 31.3.2015 in which the opposite party no.2 asked him to deposit Rs.27164/- which is alleged to be due against Narinjan Singh. The said connection has already been disconnected by the opposite party no.2 since about 2/3 years back. The said demand by the opposite party no.2 from him is illegal, null and void, inoperative, ineffective and he is not bound to pay any amount to the opposite party no.2 rather he is entitled to receive Rs.12,000/- alongwith interest. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply  by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false  and frivolous complaint with the intention to take the undue advantage of the process of law; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and had concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately and the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it was submitted that one electric NRS connection was sanctioned in the name of Niranjan Singh father of the complainant in a shop which existed in the same premises and the amount of Rs.27,164/- was the outstanding amount of the aforesaid connection. The area J.E. reported that the abovesaid outstanding amount may please be added in the domestic connection which was running in the name of his son. After that the opposite party has sent the notice dated 31.3.2015 for the recovery of abovesaid amount, but the complainant did not give any report of the abovesaid notice and filed the present complaint. The father of the complainant has died. The complainant is residing in the house of his father and also acquired the other property of his father after his death, hence he is liable to pay the unpaid energy charges of the electric connection sanctioned in the name of his father. The amount demanded by the opposite parties is legal and genuine. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Ajit Singh, S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other document Ex.OP2 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.        Ld.counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has received a notice/memo no.333 dated 31.3.2015 in which the opposite party no.2 asked him to deposit Rs.27164/- which is alleged to be due against Narinjan Singh. The said connection has already been disconnected by the opposite party no.2 since about 2/3 years back. The said demand by the opposite party no.2 illegal, null and void.

8.   On the other hand, ld.counsel for the opposite party has argued that one electric NRS connection was sanctioned in the name of Niranjan Singh father of the complainant in a shop which was existed in the same premises and the amount of Rs.27,164/- was the outstanding amount of the aforesaid connection.

9.            Complainant has produced on record bill dated 19.5.2015 Ex.C-1 in which opposite party demanded Rs.29,600/- included Rs.27,164/-.  The opposite party has refused to explain the same. Opposite party in its written version submitted that earlier one electric connection bearing Account bearing No.BB360296 H  was sanctioned in the name of Niranjan Singh  son of Maghar Singh in the same premises and the outstanding amount of Rs.27,164/- is still stand against the connection bearing No.BB360296 H  and the complainant got new connection in the same premises. It is well settled 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.27,164/- clearly pertaining to electric connection bearing account bearing No.BB360296 H. 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 bearing No.BB360296 H in the electric connection bearing account No. G18BB361325 installed in the property where earlier connection bearing No.BB360296 H was installed. In our considered opinion complainant cannot be burdened with this amount for the simple reason that he was neither the consumer of electric connection bearing account  No.BB360296 H nor he was using the property where this electric connection was installed earlier. 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 demand related to the same consumer.”

 It is further stated in para No.7 of this judgement 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”.

10.        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.BB360296 H and sought to be charged against electric connection bearing account G18BB361325 is manifestly unjust and illegal and such a demand is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

11.        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.BB360296 H in the name of one Narinjan Singh son of Maghar 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.

12.               Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                             

        (Naveen Puri)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                   (Jagdeep Kaur)

December,10 2015                                                    Member

*MK*