| ORDER | Complainant Satnam Singh, 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 withdraw their illegal bill in question dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.33,694/- and not to add in the domestic Account No.G22PR680937Y belonging to him and not to recover the said amount illegally and forcibly from him. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as damages for unnecessary harassment caused to him. - The case of the complainant in brief is that he is using electric energy for his domestic needs vide account no.G22PR680937Y having its connected load 2.64 KW in his father’s name Sh.Hardip Singh son of Sh.Harbans Singh. Sh.Hardip Singh had died on 25.3.2012 and after his death he is using the said connection alongwith his other brothers namely Rajpal Singh, Manjit Singh and Ranjit Singh and he is paying its bills regularly to the opposite party. So, he is consumer of the opposite party being beneficiary and LRs of the deceased Hardip Singh. Hardip Singh was owner of two shops situated in the same locality/Mohalla Sukarpura. Both shops were given on rent to Ranjit Singh and Naresh Kumar son of Tarlok Chand resident of same Mohalla Sukarpura. An electric meter was installed in the said shop vide account No.G22 PR672666X having its connected load 0.92. Above said rent holders were paying its bills regularly to the opposite party. The said shops has been sold to Vijay Kumar son of Inderjit and Jatinder Singh son of Hardip Singh, resident of Murgi Mohalla Batala, in the month of October 2014 and they are using the electric power through the abovesaid connection exists in the shop. They are also responsible to pay the charges of electricity consumed by them. He has further pleaded that the opposite party has issued a bill dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.33,694/- for 4321 units regarding the connection bearing no.G22PR672666X, to him, but the consumption shown in the bill dated 21.12.2014 is totally wrong. He never used the excess energy as shown in the bill in question. He also never committed any theft and he never used excess load. No checking was ever made of the meter. The status of the meter is O in all the bills. Hence the bill in question dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.33,694/- issued by the opposite party is illegal, null and void and not binding upon his rights. The opposite party is threatening to add the abovesaid amount of Rs.33,694/- of the bill dated 31.12.2014 in his Account No.G22PR680937Y being used by him for domestic use and the opposite party is also threatening to disconnect his electric connection bearing Account No.G22PR680937Y, illegally and forcibly, if he failed to deposit the said amount. He requested many times to the opposite party to withdraw their illegal bill and not to add in the abovesaid domestic account but all in vain. 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 a sum of Rs.34,188/- is outstanding against NRS connection no.PR-672666 as defaulting amount upto 6.3.2015. Thus NRS connection is in the name of Hardip Singh father of complainant and one another domestic connection No.PR-68/937 is also in the name of Hardip Singh and hence opposite party is competent to transfer the defaulting amount of one connection to another electricity connection of the same consumer. On merits, it was submitted that the electric connection bearing Account No.PR-680937Y stands in the name of Hardip Singh. The opposite party has no knowledge of death of Sh.Hardip Singh as complainant till date has not moved any application with opposite party for transfer of connection in his name. Hardip Singh was also having a NRS electric connection of the shop having connected load of .92. As per record, the electric connection No.PR-672666 still stands in the name of Hardip Singh. It was further submitted that bill dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.33,694/- on account of consumption of 434 units of electricity is rightly issued to complainant. The consumption of this bill is rightly recorded and is based on actual use of electricity. A sum of Rs.34,188/- is outstanding against NRS connection no.PR-672666 as defaulting amount upto 6.3.2015. This NRS connection was in the name of Hardip Singh the father of complainant and one another domestic connection No.PR-68/937 is also in the name of Hardip Singh and hence opposite party is competent to transfer the defaulting amount of one connection to another electricity connection of the same consumer. The question of withdrawing the bill dated 31.12.2014 does not arise at all as this bill is legal based on actual use of electricity. Lastly opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. 5. Sh.Lalit Kumar S.D.O. P.S.P.C.L. of the opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith document Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence. - We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
- As per version of the complainant that his father Hardip Singh has been died on 25.3.2012 and after his death the complainant alongwith his brothers namely Raj Pal, Manjit Singh and Ranjit Singh are using the domestic electric connection bearing account no.G-22PR-680937Y and paying its bills regularly. Whereas the other two shops situated in the same locality/Mohalla Sukarpura. Both shops were given on rent to Ranjit Singh and Naresh Kumar son of Tarlok Chand resident of same Mohalla Sukarpura and an electric meter was installed in the said shop vide A/c No.G-22PR-672666X and above said rent holders were paying the bills to the other parties and they were responsible for any outstanding amount dues if any. Moreover the said shops have been sold to Vijay Kumar son of Inderjit and Jatinder Singh son of Hardip Singh resident of Murgi Mohalla Batala in the month of October, 2014 and they are using the electric power through the above said connection exists in the shop. The opposite parties cannot add the above said amount of Rs.33,694/- of the bill dated 31.12.2014 in the A/c No.G-22PR-680937Y as this domestic connection is used by the complainant and his brothers after the death of their father. Whereas the electric connection bearing A/c No.G22-PR-672666X was used by Ranjit Singh and Naresh Kumar who have taken on rent by them and after their use the shops were sold to Vijay Kumar son of Inderjit and Jatinder Singh son of Hardip Singh resident of Murgi Mohalla Batala. So the rent holders or purchasers of the shops were responsible for the any outstanding due if any.
- So in the light of our above observation and findings, complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed and the impugned demand if any in the bill dated 31.12.2014 amounting to Rs.33694/- is held illegal, null and void. The opposite parties are restrained to add in the domestic A/c No.G-22PR-680937Y belonging to the complainant. If the complainant has deposited any amount against this demand be refunded to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of order failing which refundable amount shall attract interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of orders till payment.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record. (Naveen Puri) President. ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur) OCT. 07, 2015 Member. *YP* | |
