BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 489 of 2015
Date of Institution: 11.8.2015
Date of Decision: 13.5.2016
Sh.Daljit Singh S/o Sh. Roor Singh R/o E-4/1715, Gali No.7, Jawahar Nagar,Chheharta, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Assistant Executive Engineer Sub Division West Commercial, Amritsar
- Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, West Commercial, Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant :Sh.M.S. Gill,Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Sh.N.S.Sandhu,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Originally, the complaint was dismissed by District Forum, Amritsar, vide order dated 4.11.2014 by holding that the present case related to theft of energy and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try & decide the present case. The complainant filed an appeal against impugned order dated 4.11.2014 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh which vide order dated 14.7.2015, accepted the appeal and order passed by the District forum was set-aside . The complaint was remanded back for deciding the same afresh on merits.
2. Daljit Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he purchased housed in Abadi Jawahar Nagar, Chheharta from Smt.Rama Rani W/o Mohan Lal vide sale deed dated 14.10.2011. Rama Rani purchased the plot from Sukhdeep Singh son of Daljit Singh vide sale deed dated 14.5.2004. Earlier to 14.10.2011 , the complainant had no right, title or interest in the house in dispute. The complainant applied for electric connection for domestic use and deposited Rs. 2710/- vide receipt No. 381 dated 17.10.2011 for the said house. The opposite party released the connection on 9.11.2012 vide account No. A26HH231034N. Thereafter the opposite party has been issuing bills to the complainant and the complainant has been making the payment of the bills regularly. The complainant received memo No. 1031 dated 18.4.2013 from the opposite party in which it was stated that Addl. SE Enforcement III, Amritsar had checked the Aahata on 14.9.2011 and he found that a load of 4.496 KW was running in the Aahata occupied by Sh.Rajinder Singh son of Roor Singh. The complainant was surprised to receive this notice. After receipt of this notice, complainant made correspondence with the opposite party stating therein that he had purchased the house from Smt.Rama Rani wife of Mohan Lal on 14.10.2011 . The complainant also sought information through RTI and the opposite party informed vide their memo No. 3037 dated 2.8.2013 that as per the checking report, the address of Sh. Rajinder Singh son of Roor Singh ahs been mentioned as Laate Wala School, Fauji Pardhan Wali Gali,Prince Avenue, Chheharta, Amritsar. The complainant told that he has not committed any theft of electricity after purchase of the house from Smt. Rama Rani. It is also not the case of the opposite party that Rama Rani wife of Mohan Lal had committed any act of theft of electricity in the said house. It was also not the case of the opposite party that complainant has committed any act of theft of electricity energy. But, however, the opposite party has demanded an amount of Rs. 1,47,316/- from the complainant, whereas the memo was in the name of Rajinder Singh. An amount of Rs. 1,47,316/- has been added in the bill of the complainant for the period w.e.f. 25.3.2013 to 16.5.2013 against the consumption for the said period to be 294 units. On receipt of the said bill, complainant made correspondence with the opposite parties requesting them to rectify the bill, but to no avail. The complainant has alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and directions may be given to it to reduce the amount of Rs. 1,47,316/- wrongly added in the bill and to accept the amount of current charges of the bills dated 7.7.2013 and 6.9.2013. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses has also been demanded.
3. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it is stated that connection bearing account No. HH23/1034 under DS category was in the name of the complainant and at the time of obtaining the said connection, complainant had agreed to abide by all the rules and regulations as well as conditions under which the said connection was to be released to him. It is further stated that on 14.9.2011 the checking of the premises, where the connection in dispute is installed, was carried out by Er. Ashwani Kumar, Addl.SE Enforcement III and at that time no electricity connection was installed in the said premises . It was found that one Rajinder Singh son of Roor Singh was committing theft of electricity energy in the said premises by connecting direct wires with the main lines passing outside the premises from the naked joint . Rajinder Singh was found using the load to the extent of 4.496 KW unauthorizedly. The private black colour PVC wire of about 10 meter was removed by the officials of the opposite party and was taken into possession. As no electricity connection was installed in the premises , where checking was carried out, so in order to identify the premises, it was found that near the said premises, an electricity connection bearing account No. HH 28/587 was installed in the same gali and in the same area i.e. Jawahar Nagar in the name of Manjit Kaur wife of Ranjit Singh. In this respect checking report was prepared and Smt.Harpreet Kaur wife of Rajinder Singh after admitting the contents of the said checking report, signed the same. On the basis of the checking report, a provisional notice bearing No. 1331 dated 19.9.2011 was issued to aforesaid Rajinder Singh son of Roor Singh demanding Rs. 1,47,316/- on account of theft of energy. But he failed to comply with the said notice. It is further stated that originally the said property was the ownership of Rama Rani wife of Mohan Lal and she has sold the same to complainant and at present complainant is in possession of the premises, where checking was carried out , therefore the complainant was bound to clear the defaulting amount . As such a notice vide memo No. 804 dated 11.4.2012 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs. 1,47,316/-. But the complainant has failed to comply with the said notice. It was submitted that at that time when the complainant had obtained new connection, he had agreed to abide by all rules, regulations and conditions of the opposite party and as per notification dated 24.5.2010 issued by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide CC No. 28/2010 dated 18.6.2010 vide which clause No. 30.15 is reproduced as under :-
“30.15 However, in case of transfer of property by sale/inheritance, the purchaser/heir will be liable to pay all charges due and found subsequently recoverable from the consumer.”
4. It is further stated that as per the aforesaid amended clause, the complainant being the present owner/purchaser of the property, is liable to pay the outstanding amount to the opposite party. Smt.Rama Rani erstwhile owner of the property was having electricity connection bearing account No. HH23/669 in the said premises and she being consumer of said connection got the same shifted to her new place i.e.Ranjitpura and new account No. NH34/709 has been allotted to the aforesaid connection. Demand has been raised as per clause 30.15 and while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
5. In his bid to prove the case Sh.M.S.Gill, Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of sale deed Ex.C-2, copy of sale deed dated 14.10.2011 Ex.C-3, copy of power of attorney dated 24.2.2010 Ex.C=4, copy of ration card of complainant Ex.C-5, copy of receipt dated 17.10.2011 Ex.C-6, copy of electricity bills Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8, copy of payment receipt dated 20.7.2012 Ex.C-9, copies of electricity bills Ex.C-10 & Ex.C-11, copies of payment receipt dated 21.9.2012 and 26.11.2012 Ex.C-12 & Ex.C-13, copies of bills Ex.C-14 and Ex.C-15, copy of payment receipt dated 18.3.2013 Ex.C-16, copy of payment receipt dated 15.1.2013 ERx.C-17, copy of payment receipt dated 27.6.2013 Ex.C-18, copy of payment receipt dated 25/6.2013 Ex.C-19, copies of bills Ex.C-20 to Ex.C-22, copy of show cause notice dated 19.9.2011 Ex.C-23, copy of checking register page No. 777 Ex.C-24, copy of memo dated 11.4.2012 Ex.C-25, copy of memo dated 18.4.2013 Ex.C-26, copy of memo No. 2.8.2013 Ex.C-27, copy of letter Ex.C-28, copies of postal receipts Ex.C-29 to Ex.C-32, copy of letter Ex.C-33, copies of postal receipts Ex.C-34 to Ex.C-37, counter affidavit of complainant Ex.C-38, copy of passport Ex.C-39, copy of aadhar card Ex.C-40, copy of memo dated 7.5.2015 Ex.C-41, copy of electricity bill Ex.C-42, copy of payment receipt of electricity bill dated 19.5.2015 Ex,.C-43, copy of order of State Commission Ex.C-44, copy of cheque dated 13.1.2015 Ex.C-45, copy of payment receipt dated 14.1.2015 Ex.C-46 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
6. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.N.S.Sandhu,Adv.counsel for opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Swaranjit Singh, SDO Ex.OP1, affidavit of Er.Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Addl.SE Enforcement III Ex.OP2, copy of A&A form Ex.OP3, cop of PAN card Ex.OP4, copy of MCO Ex.OP5, cop of A&A form Ex.OP6, copy of checking report Ex.OP7 & OP8, copy of memo dated 19.9.2011 Ex.OP9, copy of ledger Ex.OP10, site report Ex.OP11, copy of MCO Ex.OP12, copies of payment receipts Ex.OP13 and OP14, copy of letter memo No. 7378 Ex.OP15, copy of receipt Ex.OP16, copy of circular No. 28/10 Ex.OP17 , copy of notification dated 24.5.2010 Ex.OP18 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
8. From the appreciation of the evidence and documentary proof on record, it becomes evident that house is not the same where theft of energy was allegedly committed on 14.9.2011. The address of Rajinder Singh mentioned on the memo No. 1031 dated 18.4.2013 Ex.C-26 reads as under:-
“Rajinder Singh S/o Roor Singh
Near Laate Da School,
Fauji Di Dukan Wali Gali, Chheharta, Amritsar”
Whereas sale deed Ex.C-3 vide which the complainant purchased the house , the address has been mentioned as village Wadali Guru, Abadi Jawahar Nagar, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The opposite party has miserably failed to prove on record that house purchased vide sale deed supra was the one and the same place , where the alleged theft of energy was being committed and noticed by Sh.Ashwani Kumar,Addl.SE Enforcement III,Amritsar on 14.9.2011. Although the opposite parties have tried to make up the deficiency by producing affidavit of Er.Swaranjit Singh,SDO (Commercial), PSPCL, West Sub Division, Amritsar who states that at present the complainant is in possession of the premises of which checking was carried out on the fateful day. But the oral testimony of Er. Swaranjit Singh, SDO belies the documentary proof on record of the file. A man may tell a lie but the documents do not . It is settled principle of law that where there is conflict between documentary and oral evidence, it is the documentary evidence which is to be given preference over the oral evidence . As such there is no escape but from holding that the opposite party has miserably failed to establish on record that the premises in possession of the complainant were to be same , where on 14.9.2011 , Rajinder Singh son of Roor Singh , was found committing theft of energy.
9. Once it is proved that “Ahata” where Rajinder Singh was allegedly committing theft of energy on 14.9.2011, the demand put-forth by the opposite party asking the complainant to deposit Rs. 1,47,316/- , is not tenable. Had the opposite parties were that sure that the house belonging to the complainant was the place, where offence of theft of energy was committed, they must have refused to release the electric connection in those premises without getting the penalty amount deposited from the complainant in October 2011 itself. The very fact that no such demand was raised at the relevant time and that the demand was raised for the first time on 18.4.2013 vide memo No. 1031, copy whereof is Ex.C-26, clearly shows that there is some hanky panky in the matter. Thereafter the complainant received bills dated 7.7.2013 and 6.9.2013 wherein the excessive amount of Rs. 1,47,316/- was added arbitrarily and illegally in view of clause No. 30.15 of the notification dated 24.5.2010 issued by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission for fixing the responsibility of the complainant . But that clause could be applicable only if the opposite parties were able to prove that the premises of the complainant were one and the same, where the theft of energy was committed on the fateful day. But that not being the case, the demand raised by the opposite party was unwarranted. The complainant offered to deposit the bills as per actual consumption. But the opposite parties did not accede to the request of the complainant.
10. From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that the complainant has been able to prove that demand of Rs. 1,47,316/- raised by the opposite party was illegal, null and void and has been wrongly added in bills dated 7.7.2013 and 6.9.2013 issued to the complainant and the opposite parties are legally bound to accept the amount of current charges of the aforesaid bills. During the course of arguments, it has been brought to our notice that the opposite parties have received the amount of Rs. 1,47,316/- during the pendency of this complaint and the complainant was forced to deposit the same alongwith interest to the tune of Rs. 1,50,030/- vide demand draft dated 13.1.2015 , copy whereof is Ex.C-45 and receipt Ex.C-46. In such a situation the excessive amount realised by the opposite party may be adjusted against the future demands of consumption and other charges of the opposite parties regarding electric connection of the complainant. Since the opposite parties are found to be deficient in service and they have kept engaged the complainant in prolonged litigation, therefore, complainant is granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3000/- also. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 13.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
