Complainant Mukhwinder Masih, through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to rectify the bills and to recover the actual consumption amount from him after giving concession of exempted units. Opposite parties be further directed to restore his electric connection and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him due to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that an electric connection bearing Account No.G24BF 570645H has been installed in the name of his father Sh.Meniro. He had expired and after his demise he being his son/LR is using the connection in question, paying its bills etc. regularly, nothing was outstanding against him and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. He is a poor labourer. He has a very small house. His father as well as he is living below poverty line and his 200 units per month have been exempted by the Government of Punjab. His sanctioned and existing load is 0.40 KW and status of meter is also ‘O’. He has further pleaded that the opposite party has issued a bill dated 19.10.2014 for Rs.29,549/- which is totally wrong, exaggerated, arbitrary, much more than the actual consumption made by him. On receipt of the illegal bill in question he approached the opposite party no.1 and requested them to rectify the bill and to receive the actual consumption charges, as he never used electricity to such an extent for which the bill is issued but of no avail. To his utter surprise the opposite party disconnected his domestic electricity connection about four months back. He had been approaching the opposite parties and requesting for the restoration of his electricity connection, but the opposite party no.1 and 2 always put the matter pending with one pretext or the other. The demand of the opposite parties without any checking and notice is illegal and subsequent disconnection of the electricity connection is against the rules, not binding upon him and liable to be withdraw because he neither came into arrears of amount due to the opposite parties, nor consumed electricity to such an extent for which the bills are issued and as such the demand in question is liable to be quashed. Thus there is deficiency in service 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 taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no right to file the present complaint as domestic electricity Account No.BF-57/773 A in the name of complainant has been permanently disconnected due to non payment of arrears of electricity amounting to Rs.26,301/-, hence the complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties. It was further submitted that abovesaid electricity connection was installed in the house of the complainant. On merits, it was submitted that Sh.Kuldip Singh SDO PSPCL Sub Div. Kotli Surat Malhi alongwith staff on dated 9.9.2015 in their routine checking found that complainant was not having any domestic electricity connection and was getting electricity directly from the main PVC wire of the Corporation after breaking the glass of pillar box installed outside of the house of complainant and hence complainant was red handedly found involved in theft of electricity. The abovesaid checking was one in the present of complainant who however refused to sign on the checking report. Copy of checking report was also supplied to the complainant at the time of checking. So much so, aboveaid SDO tried his best to associate respectable person of the locality at the time of checking but no one came forward to become a witness by signing the checking report as generally happens in villages. Thereafter, complainant was duly served through memo no.1108 dated 10.9.2015 u/s 135 of Electricity Act whereby he was asked to deposit theft compensation amount of Rs.7984/- as well as defaulting amount of connection No.BF-57/773A as this connection was installed in the house of the complainant in his name, thus complainant through this notice was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.34,285/- with opposite parties. The amount charged by opposite parties is legal and complainant is liable to pay the same. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Kuldip Singh S.D.O. P.S.P.C.L. Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.
6. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the present complaint has been mis-stated to appear as having filed to frustrate the recovery of the excessive consumption Bill dated 19.10.2014 for Rs.29,549/- whereas in fact the complainant has filed it to circumvent/evade the penal action for having indulged in ‘theft’ of electricity and also the payment of the resultant Bill. Going by the complaint wording it mistakenly transpires that the complainant’s electricity was disconnected in the month of July’2015 (i.e., as stated therein ‘four months’ prior to filing of complaint in November’ 2015) whereas going by the present records the ‘disconnection’ should been caused much earlier to effect outstanding recovery of Rs.29,549/- as on 19.10.2014. However, it is not understood as to how the complainant could manage without electricity-supply that he alleged as having been ‘deprived of’ in July’ 2015. The complainant has (on records) filed the present complaint (in November’ 2015) since the OP service providers threatened him (2 days back) to recover the unpaid amount through coercive methods although his electricity supply has already been disconnected 4 months back (i.e., in July’2015); whereas during the one OP’s inspection on 09.09.2015 the complainant was found indulged in ‘theft’ of electricity and to avoid its payment and charges/ accusation of ‘theft’ the present complaint has been filed.
7. We also find, as discussed in the foregoing paragraph that the complainant has knowingly suppressed the fact of ‘inspection’ and issuance of ‘demand’ and also the date of disconnection of his electricity supply as sometime in July’2015 whereas that was apparently disconnected much earlier. Moreover, the disconnection continuing for more than six months attracts ‘termination’ clause 31.4 of the supply code 2014 and that terminates the very ‘consumer’ relationship under the Act and that in turn questions the very maintainability/continuity of the present complaint. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint stands bereft of all actionable merit under the adjudicatory act.
8. In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint as devoid of all merit under the CP Act’ 1986 and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
January 29, 2016 Member.
*MK*
