Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that father-in-law of the complainant obtained one electric connection bearing account No.GT16/708 in his residential premises situated at Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar. The father-in-law of the complainant had died in the year 1970. After his death, husband of the complainant also died in 2012 and after his death, the complainant is using the above said connection being the consumer/ beneficiary of the connection, hence the complainant is consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Earlier the father of the complainant and after his death, the complainant has been making the payment of the electricity bills regularly as per the consumption recorded by the meter and as per the bills issued by the Opposite Party. There has been no default on the part of the complainant or her father-in-law or her husband as per as the payment of electricity arrears outstanding against the complainant in respect of his above said electric connection. Few days ago, some officials of the Opposite Party came to her premises and asked him to deposit Rs.4 lacs without disclosing any details. The complainant was shocked and surprised to hear this and told him that he had paid all the bills in time. The complainant also showed them all the bills alongwith its receipts, but they did not pay any heed to his genuine request. So, on continuous request of the complainant, they asked the complainant to meet the higher officials of the Opposite Party by tomorrow morning else his connection will be disconnected permanently. On the very next day, the complainant went to the Sub Division and met the higher officials of the Opposite Party and asked for the detail of the above said alleged charged amount. On this request, the Opposite Party handed over some documents to the complainant through which they claimed Rs.16,46,411/- proportionally divided between four persons which amounts to Rs.4,11,602/- each. On careful scrutiny of these documents, the picture which comes in the mind of the complainant is that the complainant was the owner in possession of one property which was sold by him in the year 2006 to one Paramjit Arora. At the time of sale of the said property, nothing was due outstanding against the complainant. So, said Paramjit Arora in order to run business in that property got installed one new electric connection bearing account No.SP/38/596 in the name of his firm M/s.Suriya Embroidery. Had there been any amount outstanding against this connection before the sale of this property, no new connection could be released over that property. Since the year 2006 i.e. after the sale of the above said property, the complainant had nothing to do of the above said property. Again in the year 2013, said Paramjit Arora closed his factory and cleared all his dues. The Opposite Party failed to give any reason to the complainant as to how they decided to transfer the said amount of Rs.16,46,411/- proportionally between the four persons. Moreover, it is worthwhile to mention here that as per section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, no amount is recoverable after the expiry of two years. The complainant explained all these facts to the officials of the Opposite Party, but they did not bother to listen the complainant and insisted upon full payment without 10 days else they will transfer the amount in their DS account and on its non payment, they will disconnect his connection permanently. The conduct and attitude of the officials of the Opposite Party is nothing else, but the act of gross negligence, carelessness on their part and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Party be directed not to disconnect the domestic electric connection of the complainant.
b) Compensation of Rs.20,000/- may be awarded to him on account of suffering mental pain, agony, harassment, inconvenience at their hands due to deficiency in service.
c) Costs of the proceedings of Rs.10,000/-
d) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum; the complainant had no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is denied that the complainant is regularly making the payment to the Opposite Party. It is averred that the complainant is having an electricity connection in the name of M/s.Kapoor Dying and the same was permanently disconnected on 26.11.1999 due to non payment of consumption charges of Rs.7,74,304/-. Similarly, other connections were permanently disconnected due to non payment of the consumption charges which are in total Rs.16,46,411/-. All the connections were installed in one building which was lateron purchased by Paramjit Arora in the year 2006. The Border Zone Dispute Settlement Committee meeting was held on 20.09.2016 and took the decision that since all the industries were closed since long and the defaulters are residing in various colonies at Amritsar and the defaulting be charged equal proportions to all the four defaulters in their other electricity connection. On the basis of the said meeting, the amount in dispute has rightly been demanded from the complainant. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In her bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Er.Jatinder Singh, Addl.SE Operation Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex. OP1 to Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complainant and argued that father-in-law of the complainant obtained one electric connection bearing account No.GT16/708 in his residential premises situated at Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar. The father-in-law of the complainant had died in the year 1970. After his death, husband of the complainant also died in 2012 and after his death, the complainant is using the above said connection being the consumer/ beneficiary of the connection, hence the complainant is consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Earlier the father of the complainant and after his death, the complainant has been making the payment of the electricity bills regularly as per the consumption recorded by the meter and as per the bills issued by the Opposite Party. There has been no default on the part of the complainant or her father-in-law or her husband as per as the payment of electricity arrears outstanding against the complainant in respect of his above said electric connection. Few days ago, some officials of the Opposite Party came to her premises and asked him to deposit Rs.4 lacs without disclosing any details. The complainant was shocked and surprised to hear this and told him that he had paid all the bills in time. The complainant also showed them all the bills alongwith its receipts, but they did not pay any heed to his genuine request. So, on continuous request of the complainant, they asked the complainant to meet the higher officials of the Opposite Party by tomorrow morning else his connection will be disconnected permanently. On the very next day, the complainant went to the Sub Division and met the higher officials of the Opposite Party and asked for the detail of the above said alleged charged amount. On this request, the Opposite Party handed over some documents to the complainant through which they claimed Rs.16,46,411/- proportionally divided between four persons which amounts to Rs.4,11,602/- each. On careful scrutiny of these documents, the picture which comes in the mind of the complainant is that the complainant was the owner in possession of one property which was sold by him in the year 2006 to one Paramjit Arora. At the time of sale of the said property, nothing was due outstanding against the complainant. So, said Paramjit Arora in order to run business in that property got installed one new electric connection bearing account No.SP/38/596 in the name of his firm M/s.Suriya Embroidery. Had there been any amount outstanding against this connection before the sale of this property, no new connection could be released over that property. Since the year 2006 i.e. after the sale of the above said property, the complainant had nothing to do of the above said property. Again in the year 2013, said Paramjit Arora closed his factory and cleared all his dues. The Opposite Party failed to give any reason to the complainant as to how they decided to transfer the said amount of Rs.16,46,411/- proportionally between the four persons. Moreover, it is worthwhile to mention here that as per section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, no amount is recoverable after the expiry of two years. The complainant explained all these facts to the officials of the Opposite Party, but they did not bother to listen the complainant and insisted upon full payment without 10 days else they will transfer the amount in their DS account and on its non payment, they will disconnect his connection permanently. The conduct and attitude of the officials of the Opposite Party is nothing else, but the act of gross negligence, carelessness on their part and unnecessary harassment to the complainant.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant is having an electricity connection in the name of M/s.Kapoor Dying and the same was permanently disconnected on 26.11.1999 due to non payment of consumption charges of Rs.7,74,304/-. Similarly, other connections were permanently disconnected due to non payment of the consumption charges which are in total Rs.16,46,411/-. All the connections were installed in one building which was lateron purchased by Paramjit Arora in the year 2006. The Border Zone Dispute Settlement Committee meeting was held on 20.09.2016 and took the decision that since all the industries were closed since long and the defaulters are residing in various colonies at Amritsar and the defaulting be charged equal proportions to all the four defaulters in their other electricity connection. On the basis of the said meeting, the amount in dispute has rightly been demanded from the complainant.
8. It is the case of the Opposite Party that due to non payment of consumption charges by the complainant as well as by other persons, their connections were permanently disconnected which are in total Rs.16,46,411/-. All the connections were installed in one building which was lateron purchased by Paramjit Arora in the year 2006. The Border Zone Dispute Settlement Committee meeting was held on 20.09.2016 and took the decision that since all the industries were closed since long and the defaulters are residing in various colonies at Amritsar and the defaulting be charged equal proportions to all the four defaulters in their other electricity connection. On the basis of the said meeting, the amount in dispute has rightly been demanded from the complainant. Persual of the averments made by the Opposite Party, it shows that the due amount pertains to the year 2006 and in the Border Zone Dispute Settlement Committee, which was held on 20.09.2016 i.e. after about 10 years, it was decided that the defaulted amount be charged equal proportions to all the four defaulters in their other electricity connection. Two folds argument was raised by the ld.counsel for the complainant that under section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 recovery of amount due beyond two years could not be recovered. On the other hand, no effective arguments were advanced by the counsel for the opposite party. For the purpose of convenience, section 56 (2) of Electricity Act, 2003 is reproduced below:-
Sec.56 Disconnection of supply in default of payment (1) xxxxxxxxxxxx
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”
Even if taking the allegations of opposite party at their face value , the amount was due prior to 1999 as stated by the opposite party. Permanent disconnection was ordered in 1999. Certainly the amount was due prior to that. Therefore, in face of provisions contained in section 56(2) of Electricity Act, 2003 sum due from any consumer recoverable prior to two years when it became due, could not be recovered . At the most, as averred by the opposite party, the amount pertains to the year 2006 and is certainly beyond two years thus could not be recovered. In this context, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in FAO No.102 of 2011 (against the order dated 02/12/2010 in Compliant No.28/2008 of the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab) decided on 14th November, 2011 in case titled as PSPCL Vs. Shivala Bagh Bhaian Trust has also held that
“ in view of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the demand for period of two years prior to the date of billing can not be made. All said and done, whatever may be in the earlier internal regulation; the same cannot run contrary to the provisions of the Act and wil not make the expressed legal provision nugatory. Consequently, the view taken by the State Commission is quite legal, proper and correct. We do not find any substance in the appeal.”
Thus viewing from any angle, we are of the view that opposite party has unnecessarily harassed the complainant by trying to recover the amount, which was not due from the complainant.
9. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the demand raised by the Opposite Party of Rs. 4,11,603/- from the complainant is quashed and the Opposite Party is directed not to disconnect the domestic electric connection of the complainant due to non payment of the aforesaid amount. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 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
