BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.521 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 01.11.2019

      Date of Decision: 13.09.2022

S. Paramjit Singh S/o Late S. Mehnga Singh through its Legal Heirs

1.       Baljinder Singh S/o Late Sh. Paramjit Singh R/o H. No.24-A, Model House, Jalandhar.

2.       Davinder Kaur W/o Late Sh. Paramjit Singh R/o H. No.24-A,           Model House, Jalandhar.

..........Complainants

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Model Town, Commercial      Sub Division-I, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for the Complainants.

                   Sh. K. L. Dua, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. HarveenBhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is a holder of electricity connection bearing account No.3001345655, which is running in the name of his father Late S. Mehnga Singh. The complainant being legal heir is using the aforesaid connection for himself as well as his family members. The complainant had been suffering from electricity problems like fluctuation and power cuts from last 5 months i.e. since June 2019 and complainant through his son had made several complaints regarding the same on PSPCL application developed by PSPCL on android platform and so also on helpline No.1912 of PSPCL. The complainant received several computerized messages from the helpline No.1912 on the registered mobile number i.e. 90414-36075 which is registered with the office of PSPCL against account bearing no.3001345655. The complainant had also made several complaints regarding the fluctuation problem and electricity cuts to PSPCL on the application of PSPCL on android platform. Every time the complaint was lodged, the complainant received message from the PSPCL that the complaint has been resolved whereas the grievance of complainant was never solved. No person ever visited the house of the complainant or in the locality to solve the complaint raised by the complainant. On 14.09.2019 due to fluctuation problem suffered by the complainant, the cooler, fridge, inverter, fans, LED, computer & LED bulb were damaged due to short circuit caused by electricity fluctuation. When the son of the complainant opened his computer for work, he found that the hard disc was corrupted/damaged due to electricity fluctuation. The son of the complainant lost his important data which was stored in the said Hard Disc. The son of the complainant paid amount of Rs.3500/- for new hard disc and its installation. The complainant has suffered loss of Rs.20,000/- for repairing the electrical appliances which were damaged due to the said electric fluctuation. Further, an estimated expenditure on recovering the important data on the damaged hard disc amounting to Rs.10,000/- is still to be incurred by the complainant. The OP is guilty of rendering deficient service, negligent and adopted unfair trade practice for not resolving the complaint of the complainant for more than five months. Last complaint was lodged on PSPCL application of the OPs on 18.09.2019, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to make the payment of Rs.20,000/- on account of repairing of electrical appliances and Rs.3500/- on account of purchase of New Hard Disc and its installation and amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of Data Recovery Charges alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder/non-joinder of the necessary parties. The Model Town Commercial Sub Division, has nothing to do with the present complaint. The Sub Division Technical Unit No.1, Model House, Jalandhar is the necessary party. It is further averred that no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present false and frivolous complaint. The complaint is misuse of the process of this Commission. The false and frivolous complaint has been filed with malafide intention, just to claim the damages from the OP, who is performing their duties, honestly and with sincerity to the entire satisfaction of the General Public, including the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP nor there is any illegal trade practice. It is further averred that there was never any sort of fluctuations as alleged. No other person from the locality has filed any such complaint. If there would have been fluctuations then there would have been number of complaints. On merits, it is admitted that the connection account bearing No.3001345655, is running in the name of Late S. Mehanga Singh, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant very minutely.

6.                The complainant has alleged that he was having electricity problem of fluctuation and power cuts since June, 2019 and despite complaints to the OP number of times, his grievance has not been resolved and due to the fluctuation problem on 14.09.2019, the cooler, fridge, inverter, fans, LED, computer and LED bulbs were damaged. His computer hard disc was damaged and the complainant has lost important data from the hard disc. Again, the complaint was lodged on 18.09.2019, but no reply has been received till today.

7.                The OPs on the other hand challenged the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground that the complainant is not the consumer of the electricity. The meter is not in the name of the complainant. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP, therefore the present complaint is not maintainable. He has referred the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in a case tiled as “PSPCL Vs. Ramesh Kumar Gupta”. He has further alleged that all the grievances of the complainant have been resolved. Even the reply to the messages has been given by the OP, whereby it has specifically been mentioned that their grievance and the issue has been resolved, the complainant has filed false complaints. It has further been submitted that the complainant has alleged the fluctuation problem in his house, but no one from the locality has ever come to the OP with the problem of fluctuation. There was no power cut as alleged by the complainant, unless and until it is required. On receipt of the complaint, the OP sent Assistant Lineman Hardev Singh to resolve the issue and he resolved the issue to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has not proved that he has suffered any damage or loss to his computer and other equipments. Request has been made to dismiss the complaint.

8.                The foremost issue to be decided is as to whether the complainant is the consumer or not and whether the complaint is maintainable or not. It is admitted that the electricity meter is in the name of Mehnga Singh, who was, the grandfather of the complainant and after the death of the grandfather Mehnga Singh, the bill was being paid by Paramjit Singh, the son of the Late Mehnga Singh, the consumer. After the death of Paramjit Singh, the present complainants i.e. his son and wife Baljinder Singh and Davinder Kaur are the legal heirs and are using the meter. The complainant has filed on record the death certificate of his grandfather Mehnga Singh, who, died on 20.12.1992 as Ex.C-23 and he has also filed on record the death certificate of Paramjit Singh, the father of the complainant Baljinder Singh, who died on 10.01.2020. The bills are being paid now by the complainants and earlier by the father of the complainant. Though, the meter is in the name of their grandfather Mehnga Singh. The complainant has proved on record the electricity bill of 2019 Ex.C-2, which is in the name of Mehnga Singh, and the receipts showing that the payment of the electricity is being made by the complainant. These receipts have been proved Ex.C-25 to Ex.C-30, which show the transaction date from 31 October, 2018 till 27 December, 2019. The law referred by the Ld.Counsel for the OP in a case titled as “PSPCL Vs. Ramesh Kumar Gupta”, is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case, the electricity connection was in the name of the owner, and the alleged purchaser was alleging himself to be the consumer of the electricity and the Hon’ble State Commission has observed that ‘since the purchaser has not informed the OP regarding the purchase and transfer of the meter, therefore he is not consumer’, but in the present case, the complainant Paramjit Singh is the son of the Mehnga Singh, the original consumer, and the present complainant Baljinder Singh and Davinder Kaur are the son and wife of the deceased Paramjit Singh. It has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission, in a case titled as “Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Parveen Kumar Jain and Ors.”, that ‘the beneficiaries, who were the one who will be affected by any order that will be passed by the PSEB, can challenge the impugned demand of electricity as they are the user of the electricity in the premises, therefore they are the consumers’. In the present case also though the electricity connection is in the name of Mehnga Singh and after his death, his son and grandson are the actual users of the electricity and they are the beneficiaries of Mehnga Singh, in whose name the electricity connection is existing. They are residing in the same premises and LRs of the deceased Mehnga Singh. They are the beneficiaries and any order will effect them being the LRs of Mehnga Singh. In such circumstances, when the complainants are using the electricity and paying the bill regularly, are the consumers.

9.                The allegations against the OPs are that for the last five months, there is a problem of electricity i.e. power cut and fluctuation and despite his messages, the issue has not been resolved. The complainant has proved on record the reply to the messages and complaints made by the complainant, in which the service request number of the complainant has been mentioned. These replies have been proved as Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-14 and Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-19 are the complaints made by the complainant on PSPCL application. All the documents i.e. the reply to the messages from Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-14, which are consisting of 12 pages and each page is having 6 replies by the OP and the heading of the messages is electricity complaints in number 912. These replies are from 06.09.2019 to 18.09.2019 and a day before filing the present complaint. The reply to the messages shows that the service request has been marked with the assurance that this issue will be resolved. Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-19 also show that the complainant has asked the OP that the issue of fluctuation has not been resolved. From these documents, it is proved that the complainant has been asking the OP continuously to resolve the issue of fluctuation and it is proved that this issue was not resolved resulting in the damage of the equipments of the complainant.

10.              The OP has denied that the complainant Baljinder Singh is not an Advocate and he has not lost any data from the computer, but to prove and rebut this fact, the complainant has proved on record Ex.C21, the certificate of enrollment as an Advocate and he has also proved on record the Invoice of Raunak Computers dated 17.09.2019 Ex.C-20 and Ex.C-22 to show that the parts of the computer were purchased by the complainant. From the documents produced and proved on record by the complainant, it has been proved that there was a problem of fluctuation and there was a short circuiting of electric current in the house of the complainant and this was due to negligence of the OP as the issue was not resolved despite number of requests made by the complainant. Had the complainant not made the complaints to the OP and no reply would have been filed by the OP, then it can be said that there was no fluctuation and short circuiting of the electricity current. The OP was knowing fully well that the complainant has been asking time and again to resolve the issue of fluctuation as it might cause problem, but no heed was paid by the OP and the matter was taken by the OP casually, which has resulted in the damage due to fluctuation and problem in electricity current.

11.              The Ld. Counsel for the OP has referred the law titled as “Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Vs. Chunilal Gordhanbhai Sidpara”, but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case the fire broke out on account of short circuiting due to high voltage in the electricity supply. There was no earlier complaint by the complainant in that case, but in the present case, there are number of complaints regarding the electricity problem and the OP was well within the knowledge that the problem of fluctuation and electricity voltage is existing in the house of the complainant, but the OP negligently did not visit the house of the complainant and did not try to satisfy the complainant and resolve the issue of fluctuation. Since the matter was already to the knowledge of the OP, therefore it was the duty of the OP to take care of such problems immediately when the matter is brought to their notice, so that any untoward incident may not happen, but no such effort was made by the OP. Mere paper work was done by the OP by writing reply to the messages sent by the complainant. After the alleged repair of the work, the OP did not bother to verify as to whether this problem has been resolved or not. Thus, there is negligence and deficiency in the service on the part of the OP. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.

12.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of damage caused to the computer and other equipments including litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

13.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

13.09.2022         Member                          Member           President