Punjab

Sangrur

CC/61/2015

Visakha Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Vinod Kumar Singla

06 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    61

                                                Instituted on:      05.02.2015

                                                Decided on:       06.05.2015

 

 

Visakha Singh son of Bakhshish Singh C/o Shri Kaur Singh (Retd. Manager PNB), R/o Hargobindpura Basti/Ramdial Basti, Near Ranbir College, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (City) Banasar Bagh Road, Sangrur.

3.     Harbans Singh, Assistant Lineman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Complaint Centre, Near Sainik Rest House, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri V.K.Singla, Adv.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Visakha Singh,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is residing in the house of Shri Kaur Singh,  for the last about one year as a tenant and there is an electricity meter installed therein bearing number S-43AM630976H in the name of landlord. It is further stated that the complainant has been using the electricity connection in question and paying the bills regularly, as such it is stated that  he is a consumer of the OPs. 

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that the OPs issued bill number 1090 dated 25.11.2014 for the period from 26.9.2014 to 25.11.2015 for Rs.1700/-, which the complainant could not deposit due to some problem.  Thereafter the OPs issued bill number 2423 dated 30.1.2015 for Rs.2710/- including the dues of previous bill dated 25.11.2014, which was payable upto 12.2.2015, but on 27.1.2015, the officials of the OP number 2 came and removed the electricity meter.  After knowing about the disconnection of electricity connection, the complainant approached OP number 2 on 28.1.2015 and apprised about the last date of bill as 12.2.2015 and further told that despite that the meter in question has been removed. It is further stated that the electricity connection in question was not restored despite deposit of the bill in question on 2.2.2015. Thereafter the complainant approached OP number 2 so many times for restoration of the connection, but all in vain.  It is further averred that prior to the complainant, OP number 3 was residing in the same house as tenant from whom Kaur Singh got vacated the house and that is why the OP number 3 disconnected the electricity connection only to harass the complainant.    It is further averred that due to this act of the OPs, the complainant suffered a lot of harassment and thus has prayed that the Ops be directed to restore the electricity connection and reinstall the electricity meter and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs.  On merits, it is admitted that the connection in question is running in the name of Kaur Singh and issuance of bill dated 25.11.2014 for Rs.1700/- is also admitted. It is further admitted that OP number 2 also issued bill dated 31.1.2015 for Rs.2710/- including previous amount of bill dated 25.11.2014. It is also admitted that the connection of the complainant was disconnected as the complainant did not deposit the defaulting amount of Rs.1850/-. It is further stated that since there was no other option with the OPs except to disconnect the electricity connection which was disconnected vide order number 006/81993 dated 29.1.2015 which was effected by the JE on 20.1.2015. It is further admitted that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1850/- only on  2.2.2015. The complainant did not move any application for restoration of the connection, so question of reconnection of the connection does not arise at all and further did not pay the reconnection fee of Rs.120/-. It is further averred that after receiving the copy of the order by OP number 2 passed by this Forum, the connection of the consumer was restored vide RCO number 025/51037 dated 6.2.2015 and the same was effected on 6.2.2015 itself, so any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of receipt, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-3 copies of bills, Ex.C-4 copy of bill dated 4.2.2015, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 photographs, Ex.C-8 affidavit of the complainant and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 copy of detail and Ex.OP-2 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

 

6.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is residing in the house of Shri Kaur Singh as a tenant and has been using the electricity connection in question and paying the bills regularly, as such, he is a consumer of the OPs and can very much maintain the present complaint.

 

 

7.             In the present case, it is admitted fact of the parties that the complainant did not deposit the bill dated 25.11.2014 for Rs.1700/- and further it is not in dispute that the dues of the bill dated 25.11.2014 were further added in the bill dated 30.1.2015 for Rs.2710/- which was payable upto 12.2.2015. It is also not in dispute that the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected on 27.1.2015 in the absence of the complainant.  We may mention here that on one hand the OPs have disconnected the electricity connection on 27.1.2015 and on the other hand, the Ops have issued bill number 2423 dated 30.1.2015 for Rs.2710/- (including the dues of previous bill dated 25.11.2014) and the bill dated 30.1.2015 was payable upto 12.2.2015.  As such, we feel that the Ops should wait for disconnection of the electricity at least up to 12.2.2015.  But, in the present case, the complainant has already deposited the bill dated 30.1.2015 on 2.2.2015 vide receipt Ex.C-1 and showed the receipt of the same to the Ops for reconnection of the connection in question.  But, the Ops did not bother to the genuine request of the complainant to restore the electricity connection and slept over the matter and did not restore the electricity connection despite his repeated requests.  As such, the complainant filed the present complaint on 5.2.2015 and on 6.2.2015 this Forum ordered the Ops to restore the electricity connection of the complainant immediately.  It is worth mentioning here that only then the OPs restored the electricity connection of the complainant.  There is no explanation from the Ops that why even after paying the whole amount of Rs.2710/- on 2.2.2015 vide receipt Ex.C-1 by the complainant to the OPs, the OPs did not restore the electricity connection of the complainant.  A bare perusal of the reply shows that the OPs have mentioned that the consumer deposited the defaulting amount of Rs.1850/- on 2.2.2015, but it seems that the OPs have not come to the Forum with clean hands as the complainant had deposited the whole bill amount of Rs.2710/- on 2.2.2015 with the OPs, as such, the OPs have mentioned wrong facts in the reply to this effect.   In the circumstances of the case, we feel that had the OPs restored the electricity connection immediately on 2.2.2015 after deposit of the bill amount to the tune of Rs.2710/- with the OPs, the complainant was not required to file the present complaint for restoration of the electricity connection in question. As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as the OPs even did not restore the electricity connection after 2.2.2015 and restored the same only after issuance of the orders by this Forum for restoration of the electricity connection in question.

 

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.  This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 6, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member