BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 332 of 2014

Date of Institution: 12-06-2014

Date of Decision: 23-07-2015

Shri Sukhdyal aged 77/78 years son of Sh.Raunak Singh, resident of Gali No.10, Main Bazar, H.No.1345, Guru Nanakpura, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,  through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala, service through the Asstt.Executive Engineer (Comm.) West Sub Division, Amritsar.  

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.  S.K.Sharma, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.  S.S.Batra, 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.Sukhdyal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that  he is holder/ consumer of domestic electric connection bearing Account No.A25XW430193K installed in his name in his residential premises  and  he has been regularly paying the consumption charges of electricity to the Opposite Party without committing any default and nothing is due outstanding against this connection. Complainant alleges that on 5.6.2014 some officials of the Opposite Party came to his premises and illegally disconnected his domestic electric connection without giving any kind of notice or intimation to him. On 6.6.2014, the complainant moved an application to SDO of Opposite Party stating the entire facts and then he was supplied a copy of memo No. 1116 dated 8.5.2014 alleging that his connection was disconnected due to the defaulting amount of Rs.4,79,289/- standing against one Account No.C14/MS11/0114 whereas the complainant has no concern with this connection. Such an act on the part of the Opposite Party is totally wrong, illegal.  Since no action was taken by the Opposite Party on the said representation dated 6.6.2014, as such, the complainant again submitted an application dated 7.6.2014 to SDO, Chheharta Sub Division, and after considering the request of the complainant to be genuine, his connection was restored on 7.6.2014. As such, the connection of the complainant remained disconnected for 3 days continuously and during this period, the complainant and his family members suffered a lot.   Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for suffering necessary harassment, mental pain, agony at the hands of the Opposite Party. Litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because the demand raised from the complainant is the penalty of theft of energy of electric connection vide Account No.MS1/114, new Account No.MS11/114 which was used for commercial purpose. It is submitted that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands, as the various material facts are concealed by him from this Forum. In fact, an electric connection bearing Account No.MS1/114, new Account No.MS11/114 having sanctioned load of 21.65 KW in the name of Anil Kumar who was running factory in the name and style of M/s.B.Tex Knitting Mills, alongwith his partner Parbodh Dayal son of Sukhdayal and the said connection was got checked by Er.Kashmir Singh, AAE vide LCR No.303/60 and found that private 4 core cable connection with the one phase of the meter after cutting before the meter directly for running the factory by Anil Kumar and Parbodh Kumar partners of the factory. It had also been found that two number motors, lights of the factory were also running directly by-passing the meter and accordingly, the case of theft of energy was declared by the team of the Opposite Party and thereafter, notice under section 135 of Electricity Act dated 26.7.2013 was issued to Anil Kumar one of the partners, by which a demand of Rs.3,93,708/- was raised and FIR has also been lodged against the defaulters before the Anti theft police station. It is mentioned over here that another amount of actual consumption was also due towards the said connection i.e. Rs.85,581/- and total Rs.4,89,289/- was due as defaulting amount, but due to non payment of said connection, the said account was permanently disconnected on 24.9.2013. But now it has come into the knowledge of the related Sub Division i.e. Islamabad Sub Division that other partner of said factory M/s.B.Tex Knitting Mills, who is son of the complainant is residing with the complainant and using the electricity from the complainant and a notice of the defaulting amount was sent to him vide memo No. 1688 dated 8.10.2013 and another notice sent vide Memo No. 1704 dated 14.10.2013 on the address of the complainant as per the guidelines of the PSPCL to recover the defaulting amount  and the said notice was received by Ms. Neelam wife of Parbodh Kumar defaulter, one of the partner of the firm M/s.B.Tex Knitting Mills, but even then, he failed to deposit the defaulting amount and accordingly a letter was written to concerned  west sub division, who also issued different notices vide memo No. 1116 dated 8.5.2014 and  memo No.1154 dated 12.5.2014 to the complainant and defaulting amount was transferred to the account of the complainant as per the guidelines of the Opposite Party, but instead of deposit of the amount, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. So, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form. 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.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Vipan Vij, AEE OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP9.
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 electric connection bearing Account No.A25XW430193K installed in his name in his residential premises under DS category. The complainant alleges that he has been making the payment of all the electricity consumption bills issued by the Opposite Party regularly  without committing any default.  On  5.6.2014 some officials of the Opposite Party came to the premises of the complainant and  disconnected his domestic electric connection. On 6.6.2014 the  complainant moved an application to SDO, Chheharta Sub Division, then the Opposite Party supplied him the copy of memo No. 1116 dated 8.5.2014 alleging that his connection was disconnected due to the defaulting amount of Rs.4,79,289/- standing against one Account No.C14/MS11/0114. complainant submits that this electric connection does not stand in the name of the complainant. So, the amount standing against this connection can not be claimed from the complainant nor his electric connection can be disconnected on account of defaulting amount outstanding against some other connection. Complainant moved an application dated 6.6.2014 (Ex.C2) to the Opposite Party  which was duly considered and on the request of the complainant, his connection was restored on 7.6.2014. So, the complainant has been harassed illegally without any cogent reason. Ld.counsel for the   complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that an electric connection vide Account No.MS1/114, new Account No.MS11/114 having sanctioned load of 21.65 KW in the name of Anil Kumar who was running factory in the name and style of M/s.B.Tex Knitting Mills, alongwith his partner Parbodh Dayal son of Sukhdayal (complainant) and the said connection was got checked by Er.Kashmir Singh, AAE vide LCR No.303/60 and found that private 4 core cable connection with the one phase of the meter after cutting before the meter directly for running the factory by said Anil Kumar and Parbodh Kumar partners of the factory. As Such,  the case of theft of energy was declared by said team of the Opposite Party and thereafter, notice under section 135 of Electricity Act dated 26.7.2013 was issued to Anil Kumar one of the partners and FIR has also been lodged against the defaulters and a sum of   Rs.4,89,289/- was due as defaulting amount against the said electric connection. Said   account was permanently disconnected on 24.9.2013. Said partner of the firm M/s.B.Tex Knitting Mills, did not deposit the same.  But it has come into the knowledge of the Opposite Party that one of the partner of the said firm namely Parbodh Dayal is son of the complainant and is residing with the complainant and is using the electricity from the complainant’s electric connection. So, notice of  defaulting amount was sent to the complainant vide memo No. 1688 dated 8.10.2013 and another notice sent vide Memo No. 1704 dated 14.10.2013 on the address of the complainant as per the guidelines of the PSPCL to recover the defaulting amount. Said notice was received by Ms. Neelam wife of Parbodh Kumar defaulter, being one of the partners of the firm M/s.B.Tex Knitting Mills. The complainant was served with another  memo No. 1116 dated 8.5.2014 and  memo No.1154 dated 12.5.2014, but the complainant also did not deposit the defaulting amount, so the defaulting amount was transferred to the account of the complainant as per the guidelines of the Opposite Party. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is consumer of electricity vide  electric connection bearing Account No.A25XW430193K installed in his name in his residential house No.1345, Gali No.10, Main Bazar, Guru Nanakpura, Amritsar. This fact has not been denied by the Opposite Party that the complainant has been making payment of  all the bills issued by the Opposite Party against the aforesaid electric connection regularly without any default. However, there was an electric connection bearing  Account No.MS1/114, new Account No.MS11/114 having sanctioned load of 21.65 KW in the name of Anil Kumar who was running factory in the name and style of M/s.B.Tex Knitting Mills, alongwith his partner Parbodh Dayal son of Sukhdayal (complainant). Said connection was got checked by Er.Kashmir Singh, AAE vide LCR No.303/60 (Ex.OP2)  and found a  private 4 core cable connection with the one phase of the meter after cutting before the meter directly for running the factory by said Anil Kumar and Parbodh Kumar partners of the factory and it was reported a case of theft of energy. Resultantly, notice (Ex.OP4)  under section 135 of Electricity Act, was issued to Anil Kumar one of the partners of the aforesaid firm and a demand of Rs.4,89,289/- was revised from the aforesaid partner of the firm, but the said partner of the firm namely Anil Kumar did not deposit the said amount. Resultantly, said electric connection was disconnected vide PDCO dated 24.9.2013 Ex.OP5.  FIR was also registered against said Anil Kumar, copy of which is Ex.OP3. Opposite Party came  to know that Parbodh Dayal son of the complainant who is one of the partners of the aforesaid firm is residing with the complainant. As such, in order to recover the defaulting amount of the said electric connection of the factory, notice was issued to the complainant to deposit the defaulting amount of the aforesaid electric connection bearing Account No.MS1/114, new Account No.MS11/114 amounting to Rs.4,89,289/-, but the complainant did not reply. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that electric connection of the complainant was never disconnected on account of non payment of the aforesaid amount outstanding against electric connection bearing Account No.MS1/114, new Account No.MS11/114  nor the Opposite Party has transferred the defaulting amount of the aforesaid electric connection into the account of the complainant. However, the complainant is apprehending  that the Opposite Party is going to recover the aforesaid amount from the complainant by transferring the outstanding amount of some commercial electric connection bearing Account No.MS1/114, new Account No.MS11/114, in the account of complainant. No doubt, the  complainant  has produced on record an application dated 6.6.2014 Ex.C2 to the effect that the  electric connection of the complainant was disconnected on 5.6.2014 by the officials of the Opposite Party. However, the complainant has admitted that on this application, the Opposite Party restored the electric connection of the complainant on 7.6.2014. Opposite Party can not transfer the outstanding amount of commercial connection bearing Account No.MS1/114, new Account No.MS11/114 which was in the name of Anil Kumar, to the account of the complainant as the complainant has no connection with said Anil Kumar nor the Opposite Party could produce any evidence in this regard. Opposite Party has alleged that said electric connection was running in the factory M/s.B.Tex Knitting Mills, in which Parbodh Dayal son of the complainant Sukhdyal was one of the partners. Even the electricity consumption amount outstanding against son of the complainant can not be transferred to the account of the complainant unless the complainant has any connection with the electric connection of the factory in which son of the complainant is one of the partners. So, the Opposite Party was not justified in transferring the outstanding amount of the commercial electric connection bearing Account No.MS1/114, new Account No.MS11/114 to the account of electric connection of the complainant under DS category that is why, the Opposite Party has not transferred  the same to the account of electric connection of the complainant. Opposite Party had wrongly disconnected the electric connection of the complainant on 5.6.2014 and restored the same on 7.6.2014. As such, the complainant suffered harassment, inconvenience during the peak summer season for 3 days. So, the Opposite Party was certainly in deficiency of service qua the complainant. The electric connection of the complainant has already been restored. Further, it is held that Opposite Party can not transfer the outstanding amount of commercial electric connection bearing Account No.MS1/114, new Account No.MS11/114, to the account of the complainant. However, the complainant has been harassed illegally as his domestic electric connection was disconnected on 5.6.2014 and restored on 7.6.2014. As such, the complainant suffered for 3 days. So, the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
9. Resultantly, this complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,000/-. Opposite Party is also directed to pay litigation expenses to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. 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: 23-07-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member