| ORDER | District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran (Punjab) Consumer complaint No: 20 of 2015 Date of Institution: 05-03-2015 Date of Decision: 01-07-2015 Amar Singh son of Buta Singh, resident of Village: Sandra, Tehsil: Patti, District Tarn Taran. …Complainant Versus - Sr.XEN Sub Urban Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Tarn Taran.
- S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Bhikhiwind.
…Opposite Parties Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: Sh.H.S.Sandhu, Advocate, counsel for Complainant. Sh.A.K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Parties. Quorum: Sh. J.S.Khushdil, President. Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member. (Sh.J,S.Khushdil, President) - The complainant Amar Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against Sr.XEN Sub Urban Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Tarn Taran and another (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Parties-PSPCL’) supported by various documents levelling allegations of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
- Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of Opposite Parties and a domestic electricity consumption connection bearing account No.T13SD1728691L is installed in his residential premises and thereby the complainant is beneficiary of services provided by the Opposite Parties. The status of the meter of the complainant is ‘O’ depicting no arrears outstanding against the complainant. Complainant alleged that he received bill for the month of December, 2013 in which the Opposite Parties raised a demand of Rs.10,350/- from the complainant as arrears. (copy of bill was presented by the complainant during the course of arguments, where certain particulars were shown emitted). The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 and enquired about the arrears of Rs.10,350/- and it was informed by opposite party No.2 that the impugned amount of Rs.10,350/- is the arrears of connection No.SD17/2818 issued in the name of Kulwant Singh son of Meja Singh. The complainant accordingly informed the opposite party No.2 that he has no concern with said Kulwant Singh son of Meja Singh, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant rather sent subsequent bill No.869 dated 29.1.2015 raising demand of Rs.12,500/- (actual amount Rs.12,744/-) with regard to connection No. SD17/2818 (Ex.C4). The complainant further alleged that the bill amounting to Rs.10,350/- and subsequent bill No. 869 dated 29.1.2015 for Rs.13,005/- are illegal and the complainant is not liable to make the payment against the aforesaid bills. The complainant, therefore, prayed to this Forum to award the following relief against Opposite Parties.
(a) To set aside the impugned bill amounting to Rs.10,350/- and subsequent bills. (b) The Opposite Parties be directed to update the official record in respect of the disputed electricity connection. © To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment caused to him at the hands of the Opposite Parties besides Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses. 3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the Opposite Parties-PSPCL which appeared through their counsel and filed written version wherein various preliminary objections have been taken interalia that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant can not take the benefit of his own wrongs and that the complainant is not maintainable as MD of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited has not been arrayed as party to the present complaint. On merits, it was admitted the complainant is ‘consumer’ of the Opposite Parties having electricity connection bearing account No.T13SD1728691L. But it is denied that the status of the meter of the complainant is ‘O’. It is further denied that the complainant was not in arrears of Rs.9,707/- on account of his domestic account No. SD17/2818 and he got a new electricity connection. Previous defaulting amount has been put in the present connection of the complainant bearing account No.T13SD1728691L. As such, the impugned amount of Rs.10,350/- has been rightly raised from the complainant. It is specifically pleaded that earlier the account of the complainant was bearing account SD17/2818 and the amount of Rs.9,707/- was due towards arrears. Other allegations levelled by the complainant are denied and dismissal of complaint has been prayed for. 4 The complainant in order to substantiate his claim tendered in to evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith following documents Ex. C-2 Copy of bill amounting to Rs.12,740/- Ex.C-3 Copy of bill amounting to Rs.11,920/- Ex.C-4 Copy of bill amounting to Rs.13,005/- and closed the evidence. 5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties have tendered following documents in evidence. Ex.OP/1 Affidavit of Jaspal Singh, SDO Mark ‘A’ Data showing account No. 2818 with the remarks that the consumer has got installed a new electricity connection. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties have closed their evidence. - We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and also perused the evidence produced on record with the assistance of ld. counsel for the parties. However, none of the party filed written arguments and therefore, the statements of ld.counsel for both the parties got recorded their statement accordingly.
- Sh.H.S.Sandhu, Advocate counsel for the complainant has invited the attention of this Forum to the pleadings alongwith relevant portion of evidence mentioned above. He submitted that the complainant was having bill showing amount of Rs. 10350/-. He has placed on record the said bill on the record. However, he has stated that the complainant was having copy of the bill where the amount and other particulars are found missing/ emitting as the bill was issued on the spot and the particulars are emitted. It is submitted that the act of the Opposite Parties by raising a demand of Rs.10,350/- and subsequent bill No.869 dated 29.1.2015 for Rs.12,500/- (actual bill of Rs.12,744/-) is patently illegal which relates to electricity connection No. No.SD17/2818 which belongs to one Kulwant Singh son of Meja Singh. It was argued that the complainant has no connection with said Kulwant Singh son of Meja Singh. When the complainant made enquiry from the office of Opposite Parties, it was informed to the complainant by the officials of the Opposite Parties that arrears pertained to Kulwant Singh son of Meja Singh pertaining to electricity connection No. SD17/2818. It is submitted that it has not been established by the Opposite Parties on the record that the electricity connection bearing account No.T13SD1728691L in the name of Amar Singh complainant and account No. SD17/2818 in the name of Kulwant Singh son of Meja Singh are installed in the same premises. Further, the Opposite Parties have not mentioned anywhere in the version that the arrears pertaining to the complainant being the consumption of the electricity of electricity connection bearing account No.SD17/2818 which is otherwise of Kulwant Singh son of Meja Singh. The Opposite Parties have not come forward with any evidence to establish that the arrears shown in the present bill in respect of connection bearing account No.T13SD1728691L of the complainant or he has consumed the electricity to such extent. No prior notice was ever issued to the complainant with regard to the arrears in question. Ld.counsel for the complainant further submitted that the average consumption of the complainant is so less and by no stretch of imagination there could be any accumulation of arrears as claimed and demanded by the Opposite Parties. Ld.counsel for the complainant therefore, submitted that the Opposite Parties are deficient in providing the services and raised the illegal demand. He has prayed to quash the impugned demand and to award the relief as claimed in the complaint.
- On the other hand, Sh.A.K.Sharma, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has addressed the argument in light of the stand taken up in the written version and as referred to the pleadings as well as evidence brought on record by the Opposite Parties. It was averred that a new electricity connection bearing account No.T13SD1728691L was allotted to the complainant and it is further submitted that he was previously having electricity connection bearing account No.SD17/2818 and the Opposite Parties have rightly claimed the arrears outstanding in account No.SD17/2818. Sh.A.K.Sharma, Adv.counsel for the Opposite Parties has submitted that both the electricity connections were installed in the same premises. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has referred the copy of document Mark ‘A’ showing connection No.SD17/2818 with remarks that the complainant has got new connection. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has admitted that no new connection could be issued in the same premises until all the arrears are cleared by new consumer. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has also argued that the impugned demand of arrears raised by the Opposite Parties is legal and as per the record. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has relied upon the rules 121.2 and 121.3 of Electricity Supply Regulations, where it is mentioned that the consumer is bound to make the payment of his due by due date and also relied upon the rule 121.3.1 stating that the department can disconnect the electricity supply in case of non clearance of arrears. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties, has further submitted that the complainant has not arrayed the MD of PSPCL as party, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- The case of the complainant is that the complainant is consumer of Opposite Parties having domestic electricity consumption connection bearing account No.T13SD1728691L installed in his residential premises and the status of the meter of the complainant is ‘O’ depicting no arrears outstanding against the complainant. But the complainant received bill for the month of December, 2013 in which the Opposite Parties raised a demand of Rs.10350/- from the complainant as arrears. When he enquired from Opposite Parties, it was found that the impugned amount of Rs.10,350/- is the arrears of connection No.SD17/2818 issued in the name of Kulwant Singh son of Meja Singh and the complainant averred that he has no concern with said Kulwant Singh son of Meja Singh. As per the version of the complainant, he prayed for the withdrawal of the impugned demand, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant, rather sent subsequent bill No.869 dated 29.1.2015 raising demand of Rs.13,005/- with regard to connection No. SD17/2818 (Ex.C4).
- The Opposite Parties have specifically admitted that the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties and has taken specific plea that the complainant was having previous electricity connection bearing SD17/2818 and he was in arrears of Rs. Rs.9707/-. Therefore, a demand of Rs. 10350/- and subsequent demand of Rs.12500/- vide bill No.869 dated 29.1.2015 was raised which is quite legal and genuine.
- The Opposite Parties have admitted that the new electricity connection of the complainant is bearing account No.T13SD1728691L and the Opposite Parties have claimed the arrears of account No.SD17/2818. Sh.A.K.Sharma, Adv.counsel for the Opposite Parties has admitted that both the electricity connections were installed in the same premises. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has given specific reference to mark ‘A’ where the account No. SD17/2818 has been mentioned and it has also been given remarks that the complainant has got new connection. It is important to mention here that it is the marked document. It is not clear from this document as to whom the account SD17/2818 belonged and who was the new consumer. The Opposite Parties was at liberty to place on record such document to establish that account No.SD17/2818 was belonging to the complainant. However, the Opposite Parties have taken this plea in the written version that the complainant got the new electricity connection and he was in arrears of Rs.9,707/- of his domestic electricity connection No. SD17/2818, but there is no evidence brought on record by the Opposite Parties that previously connection No. SD17/2818 belonged to complainant and he got new electricity connection. Further, no form or record that electricity connection No. SD17/2818 or electricity connection bearing account No.T13SD1728691L has been brought on record. In this way, the Opposite Parties have withheld the important record from this Form for the reasons best known to it and the adverse inference has to be drawn against the Opposite Parties. It is admitted case of both the parties that the complainant is ‘consumer’ of the Opposite Parties and is consuming the electricity provided by the Opposite Parties. It is the duty of the consumer to pay qua the services availed by him. In the instant case, it is not the case of the complainant that the complainant is not clearing the bills for the consumption of electrify against bills bearing account No.T13SD1728691L. He is alleging that the arrears of account No. SD17/2818 has been added in his bill.
- It is important to mention here that rules of Civil Procedure Codes as well as Indian Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to this Forum. The procedure as per the mandate of Act is summary procedure. We would like to add here that even in the summary procedure each of the party is bound to establish its claim/ counter claim by leading sufficient and cogent evidence.
- The aforesaid discussion leads to the conclusion that the complainant is having domestic electricity connection bearing account No.T13SD1728691L whereas Kulwant Singh son of Meja Singh is having electricity connection No.SD17/2818. It has been established on record that the arrears of that account No.SD17/2818 have been added in the new account of the complainant bearing account No.T13SD1728691L. If the complainant was allotted new connection, then it was the duty of the Opposite Parties at the time of issuing new electricity connection to ensure that no arrears was outstanding against the previous consumer of the same premises. It is further important to mention here that that none of the party has come up with proper identity of Kulwant Singh son of Meja Singh as to whether he was the vendor of the premises of the complainant or was having some other relations with the complainant. As noticed above, it has been mentioned above that the Opposite Parties have not come up with the relevant record. Assuming if said Kulwant Singh was in arrears then it was for the Opposite Parties to effect the recovery through any lawful way as prescribed under the rules. It is settled proposition of the law that any amount outstanding against one electricity connection can not be added in the bill of another connection. We are strengthened by the view expressed in case Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Gurjit Kaur 2004(1) CLT-622. On the other hand, no rule, regulation/ instructions or law has been shown by the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties that the arrears of other consumer could be added in the bill of another consumer. We are of the view that by use of such type of the tactics of unfair trade practice amounts to put the consumer in embarrassing position. In the instant case, the complainant has made so many visits to the office of Opposite Parties for correction of his account, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and the complainant was forced to file this complaint for the redressal of his grievances. Obviously, the complainant would have undergone mental harassment and agony and inconvenience without any reasonable cause.
- Therefore, this Forum is of the view that the instant complaint has merits and the same is accepted. The demand of arrears of Rs.10,350/- and subsequent bill No.869 dated 29.1.2015 for Rs.12,500/- (actual amount Rs.12,744/-) is hereby set aside. The Opposite Parties are directed to issue the fresh bill to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption excluding the aforementioned amount of arrears and correct its record accordingly. However, the Opposite Parties are at liberty to recover the disputed amount, if any, from Kulwant Singh son of Meja Singh or any other person as per law/ rules. Further the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,100/- being consolidated amount of compensation which includes counsel fee and litigation expenses. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Forum. Dated: 01.07.2015. (J.S.Khushdil) President (R.D.Sharma) Member | |
