| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No.427 of 2014 Date of Institution: 05-08-2014 Date of Decision: 25-05-2015 Mrs.Neeta Arora wife of Sh.Pran Nath Arora, resident of 24, Green Avenue, Amritsar. Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala service through AEE, Civil Lines Sub Division, Amritsar. Opposite Party Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Deepinder Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: Sh. Manohar Singh, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Neeta Arora, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she has an electric connection bearing account No.C16GT162019M issued by the Opposite Party in the name of brother-in-law of the complainant under domestic category. Complainant alleges that she is using the said connection and paying all the bills raised by the Opposite Party from time to time. On the instance of some miscreants, the officials of the Opposite Party are now threatening the complainant to disconnect her electric connection. The officials of the Opposite Party are visiting the premises of the complainant for the disconnection of electricity supply and the same has been saved with the intervention of respectable. The aforesaid act of the Opposite Party in threatening to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant illegally is an act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mal practice and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party not to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Opposite Party issued the aforesaid connection in the name of Satish Kumar brother in law of the complainant for its electric connection for domestic category and the complainant was using the said connection for commercial purpose. In fact, Er.Mandeep Singh Bamra, SDO (Technical) Civil Lines Sub Division, Amritsar alongwith staff of the Opposite Party on 4.7.2014 vide checking register No. 50/313 dated 4.7.2014 checked the aforesaid connection. On checking it was found that in the above premises ‘Reviva’s Saloon’ was running which falls under CS/NRS category. The connection which was released for DS category running for the business of NRS purposes which falls under the UUE
category i.e. unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, which is not triable before this Fora. Moreover, the case was filed before the authorities for personal hearing on 25.7.2014, but the complainant and her husband could not satisfied with the order of the authority of the Opposite Party. The provisional order of assessment under UUE issued vide memo No. 1119 dated 8.7.2014 for depositing Rs.42027/- on account of using DS supply for commercial purposes which falls under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 vide checking register No. 50/313 dated 4.7.2014. Thereafter, final order of assessment was issued by the Opposite Party vide memo No. 1420 dated 1.8.2014 upon the consumer. The assessment was made by the Opposite Party under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable before this Fora. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed. - Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Kuldeep Singh, AEE Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP11 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- 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.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant has been using an electric connection bearing account No.C16GT162019M issued by the Opposite Party in the name of Satish Kumar. Complainant alleges that she has been making the payment of all the electricity bills to the Opposite Party regularly without any default. However, now the officials of the Opposite Party are threatening to disconnect the aforesaid electric connection at the instance of some miscreants. Complainant approached Opposite Party, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant nor the Opposite Party has issued any notice to the complainant regarding disconnection of electric supply. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the present case is not triable by this Fora as it is the case of unauthorized use of electricity as notice (Ex.OP3) under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 has already been issued to the original owner of electric connection. Even final assessment order of assessment has been passed under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 Ex.C4 because Er.Mandeep Singh Bamra, SDO (Technical) Civil Lines Sub Division, Amritsar alongwith staff of the Opposite Party on 4.7.2014 checked the aforesaid connection and submitted his report in which it has been mentioned that the aforesaid electric connection is for DS category whereas in the above premises, the complainant has been running ‘Reviva’s Saloon’ which falls under CS/NRS category. The complainant has been using the electric connection for business purposes which falls under the UUE
category i.e. unauthorized use of electricity. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that this case is not triable by this Fora. - From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the present case is of unauthorized use of electricity as the electric connection in question bearing account No.C16GT162019M is issued by the Opposite Party in the name of Satish Kumar in the aforesaid premises under DS category. On 4.7.2014, Er.Mandeep Singh Bamra, SDO (Technical) Civil Lines Sub Division, Amritsar alongwith staff of the Opposite Party checked the aforesaid connection and submitted his report Ex.OP2 in which it has been reported that in the above premises ‘Reviva’s Saloon’ was running and the complainant was using electricity for business purposes which falls under CS/NRS category. As such, it is a case of unauthorized use of electricity. Resultantly, notice under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 was served upon Satish Kumar, original owner of the aforesaid electric connection Ex.OP3. Even final order of assessment under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 has also been passed in this case which is Ex.OP4. All this shows that the present case falls under the head ‘unauthorized use of electricity’ by the complainant.
- In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Others Vs Anis Ahmad Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 decided on 1.7.2013, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint because the present case relates to unauthorized use of electricity.
- Consequently, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and the same is ordered to be returned to the complainant being not maintainable. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be 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: 25-05-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
