DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.256 of 17-04-2014

Decided on 23-09-2014

Gurpreet Singh aged about 40 years S/o Joginder Singh S/o Gobind Singh R/o H.No.3825, Anita Street, Mehna Chowk, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary/Chairman.

2.SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Commercial-I, Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Jupinder Pal Singh Brar, counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding one domestic electric connection bearing No.AS54/0091 and there is nothing due towards him. The opposite parties issued the memo No.1758 dated 27.3.2014 for Rs.31,416/- to the complainant, in which it has been written that this amount is related to electricity connection No.SP18/0135A that is in the name of Gobind Singh who was running Atta Chakki. The opposite parties conveyed the complainant that the alleged amount came to their notice when the account was checked that is still due and should be paid within 10 days after receiving the memo. After receiving the memo the complainant approached the office of the opposite parties and requested them that no amount is outstanding against his electricity connection and requested them to waive off the alleged demand or to withdraw the alleged memo, but the opposite parties did not listen to him and threatened him to deposit the amount. The complainant has challenged the abovesaid memo on various grounds. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw the amount of Rs.31,416/- shown in the memo No.1758 dated 27.3.2014 or to quash the same alongwith cost and compensation or to give him any other additional or alternative relief for which he may be found entitled to.

2. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum as such the present complaint deserves dismissal. The complainant has concealed the fact that Gobind Singh was his grandfather and has inherited the property of the deceased Gobind Singh and electricity connection bearing No.SP18/-0135A was installed in the name of Gobind Singh for running Atta Chakki and amount of Rs.31,416/- is outstanding against the abovesaid electricity connection and due to non-payment the abovesaid electricity connection was disconnected and meter was removed from the premises. The complainant got installed the new electricity connection in the same premises as such the opposite parties are liable to recover the amount of Rs.31,416/- from him being the legal heir of the deceased Gobind Singh, who inherited his property. The present case is not a case of defective meter, rather it is a case of arrears of energy consumption which the opposite parties are entitled to recover from the complainant.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The checking report has been prepared vide Connection Checking Register No.2009/64, Ex.OP1/1. The English rendering of the relevant portion of Ex.OP1/1 is reproduced hereunder:-

“Gobind Singh, Flour Mill, Mehna Chowk, Bathinda, connection No.SP18/135A defaulting amount Rs.31,416/-, at this place the electricity connection bearing No.AS54/0091 is running in the name of Gurpreet Singh S/o Joginder Singh, who is grandson of Gobind Singh. Action be taken as per rules.”

On the basis of the above mentioned checking report the opposite parties issued the memo No.1758 dated 27.3.2014 vide Ex.OP1/2 for the outstanding amount against the account bearing No.SP18/0135A. The English rendering of the relevant portion of Ex.OP1/2 is reproduced hereunder:-

“It is informed to you that the electricity connection bearing No.SP18/0135A was running in the name of your grandfather Gobind Singh, Flour Mill, Mehna Chowk, Bathinda against whom the defaulting amount of Rs.31,416/- is outstanding, which was checked by undersigned on 27.3.2014. During checking it was found that at present at this place the connection bearing No.AS54/0091 is running in the name of Gurpreet Singh S/o Joginder Singh, who is grandson of Gobind Singh. So you are directed to deposit the defaulting amount within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter. In case you want any information regarding this, you can come to this office on any working day. In case you failed to deposit the defaulting amount, your connection shall be disconnected and this office shall not be responsible for this.”

The opposite parties have placed on file consumption data regarding account bearing No.SP18/0135A, Ex.OP1/3, which is in the name of Sh.Gobind Singh, the grandfather of the complainant, in this consumption data the amount has been shown outstanding since 5.7.2010. Jassa Singh, the then Assistant Enginner, Commercial-I, Sub Division of PSPCL, Bathinda has deposed in his affidavit, Ex.OP1/4, that “….on that day the deponent checked the connection No. bearing No.SP/18/0135A installed in the name of Gobind Singh for running Atta Chakki situated at Mehna Chowk, Bathinda. The deponent found the arrears of energy and a sum of Rs.31,426/- is due against the said account of Gobind Singh who is the grandfather of complainant and said connection was disconnected by the opposite parties due to non-payment of abovesaid due amount and meter was removed from the premises and complainant inherited abovesaid premises of Gobind Singh, as the father of the complainant was already dead and only complainant is the care taker of the property...”, Jassa Singh, the then Assistant Enginner, Commercial-I, Sub Division of PSPCL further deposed in Para No.2 of his affidavit:-

“That on the same place a connection No.AS54/0091 was installed by the opposite parties and is in running condition in the name of complainant and the opposite parties have legally liable to recover the abovesaid amount of Rs.31,416/- from the complainant, as he is legal heir of deceased Gobind Singh and inherited his estate.”

The opposite parties issued a notice dated 27.3.2014 to the complainant for the deposit of due amount of Rs.34,416/- within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this notice. The complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.10,500/- with the order of this Forum on dated 23.4.2014 vide receipt No.287, Ex.C4. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that previous electricity connection bearing No.SP18/0135A for which the demand has been raised from the complainant is not in his name, rather it is in the name of the grandfather of the complainant.

The electricity connection bearing No.AS54/0091 has been released to the complainant, but before releasing this electricity connection the opposite parties have never raised any demand from the complainant or made any objection, rather issued the electricity connection to him without any objection. Moreover the demand raised by the opposite parties is of the year 2010 and checking has been done on 27.3.2014 and memo No.1758 dated 27.3.2014 has been sent to the complainant after 4 years, which shows that the lapse, if any, is on the part of the opposite parties, as before issuing the electricity connection in the same premises they were/are duty bound to check the said premises and to see that whether any electricity connection is running in that premises or whether there is any outstanding amount, but they without making any thorough checking issued the electricity connection to the complainant, for this the complainant should not suffer. Moreover the demand has been raised after 4 years that too of the electricity connection which is not in the name of the complainant, hence the demand is time barred. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in case titled Shubh Timb Steels Limited (M/s) & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & Ors. 2010 (3) CPC 593, wherein it has been held:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Electricity Act, 2003- Section 8 – Electricity bill –OP raised a bill of Rs.2,56,404/- against complainant in the year 2000– Notice for recovery was issued in 2008 after a lapse of 8 years–Time limit for recovery of arrears is only 2 years prescribed u/s 9 and 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003– No reason for considerable delay explained– OP is debarred to recover time barred arrears from complainant– Amount of Rs.75,587/- recovered illegally from complainant directed to be refunded alongwith 9% p.a. interest–Complaint allowed.”

Further, the Reliance can be put on the precedent laid down by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in case titled Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. Vs Munna Lal Jain, III (2010) CPJ 9, wherein it has been held:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986– Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 15 Electricity Act, 2003–Section 56(2)– Electricity– Previous bills demanded– Domestic connection Bill including arrears of preceding period of two years issued –Deficiency in service alleged–Complaint allowed–Hence appeal–Contention, bills regularly sent to connection holder, rejected–Section 56(2) of Electricity Act clearly prohibits raising of bills for a period beyond two years–Deficiency in service proved–Compensation and costs awarded by Forum set aside.”

Further the support can also be sought by the precedent laid down by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in case titled M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. Vs Babulal Savita, II (2008) CPJ 398, wherein it has been held:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986– Section 15– Electricity– Arrears–Time barred– Arrears of previous owner–Complainant not liable to pay–Demand regarding previous arrears of period much more than two years immediately preceding demand, time-barred– O.P. cannot recover arrears from complainant.”

Furthermore the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, in case titled Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs Rajji Bai, IV (2008) CPJ 563, wherein it has been held:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g)–Electricity– Sundry dedicated scheme applied–Rs.10,000 deposited by complainant–Sundry charges, in addition to balance payable under scheme, demanded–Demand made on basis of objections raised by Audit Party– Relevant instructions as per circular not followed by O.P.-Demand raised along with energy consumption charges, after expiry period of three years, barred by Section 56, Electricity Act, 2003–Demand illegal, unjustified, set aside by Forum – Order upheld in appeal.”

6. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to withdraw the memo No.1758 dated 27.3.2014 and amount of Rs.10,500/- deposited vide receipt No.287 vide order dated 21.4.2014 by the complainant during the pendency of this complaint be adjusted in his future bills and adjustment of the amount will clearly be shown in the furture bills issued to the complainant by the opposite parties.

7. The compliance of this order with regard to cost and compensation and withdrawal of the memo No.1758 dated 27.3.2014 be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

23-09-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh) Member