BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 579 of 2015

Date of Institution: 16-09-2015

Date of Decision: 03.03.2016  

Shri Dharampal Singh son of Shri Bhan Singh, resident of VPO: Sanghana, Tehsil & District Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its SDO/XEN, Chhabal Sub Division, Amritsar.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Division, Tarn Taran, through its SDO/XEN/ Officer Incharge. 

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Advocate

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Anil Sharma, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Dharampal Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that an electricity connection bearing No.T21SG321072X, under domestic category has been installed in the premises of the complainant and he had been paying all the electricity bills of consumption from time to time and there is no due of any kind against the complainant. Complainant alleges that in the month of August, 2015 the complainant received an electricity bill dated 17.8.2015 for Rs.37,890/- in which Rs.35,586/- has been illegally and unlawfully charged by the Opposite Parties. The complainant immediately approached the officials of the Opposite Parties and requested for the rectification of the bill in question and also asked the detail of the said illegal amount, but the officials of the Opposite Parties  did not rectify the said bill and did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties  to  rectify the bill in question. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum as in the same premises of the complainant, an electricity connection vide account No.SG32/662 in the name of Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh was installed which was declared PDCO vide PDCO No.2/65322 dated 25.7.2014 due to non payment of Rs.35,877/-. According to rules and regulations of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, said defaulting amount was transferred in the account of complainant as the complainant is now  residing in the same premises. In this regard, a detailed notice vide memo No. 613 dated 31.3.2015 was issued to the complainant to pay the said amount, otherwise this amount will be added in the account of the complainant. The complainant did not reply the notice nor paid the amount and ultimately, this amount was added in his regular electricity bill dated 17.8.2015 according to the rules and regulations of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Vijay Kumar Kapoor, AEE Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant is consumer of electricity vide  electricity connection bearing account No.T21SG321072X, under domestic category. As per the complainant’s version, he  has been making the payment of all electricity bills regularly issued by the Opposite Parties, without any default. However the complainant received a bill dated 17.8.2015 (Ex.C2) for Rs.37,890/- in which the Opposite Parties  have charged Rs.35,586/- illegally and unlawfully without any detail, not relating to the electricity consumption charges of the complainant. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties  for rectification of the bill or to explain the detail of the amount illegally charged Rs.35,586/-, but the Opposite Parties  could not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant.  Ld.counsel for the   complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties is that  in the same premises of the complainant, another electricity connection vide account No.SG32/662 in the name of Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh was installed which was declared PDCO vide PDCO No.2/65322 dated 25.7.2014 (Ex.OP5), but  due to non payment of Rs.35,877/-, said defaulting amount was transferred in the account of the complainant as the complainant is residing in the same premises. In this regard, a notice vide memo No. 613 dated 31.3.2015 (Ex.OP6) was issued to the complainant to pay the said amount, otherwise this amount will be added in the account of the complainant, but the complainant did not submit any reply to the notice nor paid the said amount. Ultimately, this amount was added in the current consumption bill of the complainant dated 17.8.2015 (Ex.C2) which is as per rules and regulations of Opposite Parties.  Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties  submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is consumer of electricity vide  electricity connection bearing account No.T21SG321072X, under domestic category. It is admitted case of the Opposite Parties  that the complainant  has been making the payment of all electricity bills regularly issued by the Opposite Parties, without any default. However the Opposite Parties  issued bill dated 17.8.2015 (Ex.C2) for Rs.37,890/- in which the Opposite Parties  have added Rs.35,586/- under the head ‘arrears’. As per the Opposite Parties, there was another electricity connection vide account No.SG32/662 installed in the same premises  in the name of Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh which was declared PDCO vide PDCO No.2/65322 dated 25.7.2014 (Ex.OP5), due to non payment of Rs.35,877/- and as per the report Ex.OP2, this amount was to be charged from the complainant as the complainant was also residing in the same premises where the aforesaid electricity connection in the name of Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh was installed. So this amount was charged to the account of the complainant and in this regard, notice dated 31.5.2015 Ex.OP6 was issued to the complainant to deposit this amount, otherwise it shall be charged in the account of the complainant. We have gone through this memo Ex.OP6. Nowhere in this memo, it has been explained to the complainant as to what was the connection/ relation of said Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh, a defaulter due to non payment of Rs.35,765/- with the complainant. Moreover, nowhere it is written that in which premises said account bearing No.SG32/662 in the name of Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh was installed. Moreover, Opposite Parties   are not certain whether it was  Paramjit Singh or Paramjit Kaur because in this notice Ex.OP6 it has been categorically mentioned that this account No.SG32/662 was in the name of Paramjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, whereas in the written version, the Opposite Parties have stated that this account was in the name of Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh. Opposite Parties did not make any effort to recover this amount from Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh or Paramjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh nor the Opposite Parties  could explain what was the relation of Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh or Paramjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh with the complainant and under which provision, they can charge this amount to the complainant. Even the Opposite Parties  have also failed to prove on record, whether both the electric connections i.e. electric connection of the complainant and electric connection of said Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh or Paramjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh were installed in the same premises. Opposite Parties  were also not certain as to which amount is to be charged or outstanding against the said PDCO account of Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh or Paramjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh because on the PDCO Ex.OP5, the outstanding amount is written as Rs.30,813/-, whereas in the ledger Ex.OP4, the outstanding amount is written as Rs.35,877/-. In the memo Ex.OP6, Opposite Parties  have mentioned the outstanding amount as Rs.35,765/- whereas Opposite Parties  have charged to the complainant an amount of Rs.35,586/- in the bill of the complainant Ex.C2. So, the Opposite Parties could not prove nor ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties could point out as to how the Opposite Parties  can  charge this amount outstanding against one Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh or Paramjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh against account No.SG32/662; what was the relation of said Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh or Paramjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh with the complainant; what effort has been made by the Opposite Parties  to charge this amount from said Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh or Paramjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh. Moreover, Opposite Parties  are also not certain as to what amount  was outstanding against said Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh or Paramjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh in account bearing No.SG32/662.
9. Consequently, we hold that the Opposite Parties  were not justified  in charging this amount of Rs.35,586/- outstanding against some another account bearing No.SG32/662 in the name of Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh or Paramjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, to the account of the complainant vide bill Ex.C2.
10. Resultantly, this demand of Rs.35,586/- raised by the Opposite Parties from the complainant  in the current consumption bill Ex.C2 is not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside. However, the Opposite Parties  can recover this amount from said Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh or Paramjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh or from the complainant after  holding that what was the relation of the complainant with said Paramjit Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh or Paramjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. 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.

Dated: 03.03.2016.                                                                (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                          President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                               Member                         Member