Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/143

Aamir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :      143

Date of Institution : 7.10.2015

Date of Decision :    10.02.2016

 

Aamir Singh @ Amar Singh, s/o Gurdit Singh, r/o Simre Wala PO Ghugiana, Tehsil & District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer PSPCL Sub Division, Sadiq, District Faridkot.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh M S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to restore the electric supply to his connection and to pay Rs 50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. F38SM930003M in his premises and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that Ops sent bill dt 15.09.2015 to complainant, which was duly paid by him. On 7.10.2015, when complainant was not present in his house, OPs disconnected his connection without any intimation or prior notice. Complainant immediately approached Ops and enquired about the disconnection, where OP-2 told him that amount of Rs 62,000/- is due towards the son of complainant pertaining to electric connection bearing a/c no. SMS93/0164. Complainant made many requests to OPs to restore his connection and he is not liable to deposit the alleged amount, but OP-2 did not accept his genuine request and flatly refused to restore his electric connection, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to  restore his electric connection and to pay Rs 50,000/-for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                   Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 7.10.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                           On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. It is averred that Pardeep Singh to whom notice vide memo no. 1226 dt 3.07.2015 is issued, is the son of complainant and they are joint in residence, mess, agriculture and worship. Pyare Singh s/o Alia Singh got WSD connection bearing a/c no. SM 93/0164 P in the portion of residential house of complainant and while checking of this connection, it was found that there was no residence in the rooms/portion having WSD connection. Pyara Singh s/o Alia Singh was working with Pardeep Singh son of complainant and now the room/potion is in possession of Pardeep Singh, who is using the electricity for said connection and said Pardeep Singh belongs to general category. Thus, they were making unauthorised use of electricity. It was further found that new double storey construction was going on and for entire building, electricity was being used through meter, which was in the name of Pyara Singh. Checking report was prepared in the presence of Pardeep Singh, who after reading and admitting its contents signed the same in token of its correctness. Checking party also signed the checking report. After receiving the checking report, assessment order was issued vide memo no. 1226 dt 3.07.2015. It is brought before the Forum that Pardeep Singh was in the possession of place having WSD connection, whereas complainant is the real owner of the said land covered with boundary wall as shown in sketch prepared by checking part. Thus, it is clear that complainant and his son want to escape their liability. However, on merits, it is asserted that complainant and his son got another connection issued in the same compound in the name of one Pyara Singh under WSD scheme, which is admissible to scheduled and weaker sections of society. Pardeep Singh son of complainant is residing with complainant and he was fraudulently using the said connection, which is in the name of Pyara Singh s/o Alia Singh for availing concession under WSD scheme. It is further averred that amount of Rs 62,214/- is still due towards complainant and disconnected connection cannot be restored until and unless defaulting amount is cleared by complainant. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                      Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2  to 3 and closed the same.

6                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh AEE Ex.OP-6, affidavit of Pawan Kumar as Ex OP-7, affidavit of Rajiv Kumar as Ex OP-8 and documents Ex OP-1 to OP-5 and closed the evidence.

7                   The ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant has a domestic electric connection installed in his residence issued by OPs. He is regularly paying the electricity bills to OPs. The last bill sent by OPs to complainant was dt 15.09.2015 and same was paid by complainant on 1.10.2015 and nothing was due towards complainant as electricity charges. The copy of the bill and receipt are Ex C-2 and 3 respectively. On 7.10.2015, when the complainant was not present in his house, the OPs disconnected his electric connection without any prior intimation and notice. On it, complainant immediately moved to OP-2 to enquire about the reason for disconnection of his electricity connection, where OP-2 told complainant that the amount of Rs 62,214/- is due towards the son of complainant regarding the connection noSM-93/0164 P. Complainant requested OP-2 that they have no right to disconnect the electric connection of complainant due to amount due towards his son and he is not liable to deposit that amount if any due, but OPs did not admit his genuine request and refused to restore the connection of the complainant without getting deposited the amount of Rs 62,214/- and again demanded this amount from complainant. All these acts of Ops amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and has caused harassment and inconvenience to complainant. By these acts of OPs complainant and his family have suffered much harassment, mental tension and complainant is entitled to get compensation for the same. Ld counsel for complainant has prayed that Ops may be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs 62,214/- and to restore the electric connection of the complainant and also to pay the compensation and litigation expenses.

8                          To controvert the arguments of complainant counsel, ld counsel for OPs argued that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. He has suppressed the material facts, which are in his knowledge. The real facts are that Pardeep Singh to whom notice is issued, is the son of complainant who is joint in mess, residence and cultivation with complainant and Ops issued a notice dt 3.07.2015 to said Pardeep Singh demanding the amount in dispute. In fact, one Pyara Singh s/o Alia Singh got WSD connection bearing no. SM 93/0164 P in the portion of the house of the complainant. The WSD category connection is meant only for SC/ST categories on concession and meagre rates of tariff. This connection was checked on 26.05.2015 by the Team headed by Harjinder Singh AE Sadiq and at the time of checking Pardeep Singh was present. During checking it is found that there was no residence in the portion where above said WSD connection was released. The said Pyara Singh was earlier working with Pardeep Singh and now that portion is in the possession of Pardeep Singh, who was using the power supply for constructing his house from said connection and he belongs to general category. As such, this is a case of unauthorised use of electricity. It is found that there new construction is going on at the site and for that purpose, the electricity from said connection of Pyara Singh was being used. Pardeep Singh disclosed that he is constructing a house. The checking party ordered to change the tariff and charged tariff of temporary connection. The checking party prepared checking report on the spot containing entire detail of inspection and sketch showing newly constructed house. Pardeep Singh who was present at that time signed on the checking report as a mark of its correctness. After receiving the checking report, OPs assessed the amount of unauthorised use of electricity and order of assessment was issued vide memo no 1226 dt 3.07.2015 to Pardeep Singh demanding that amount which was Rs 62,214/-. OPs also sent reminders to Pardeep Singh demanding him to deposit the amount in dispute. Copy of the checking report is Ex OP-1. Copy of notice dt 3.07.2015 is Ex OP-2 and remainder dt 10.08.2015, 7.09.2015 and 17.09.2015 are Ex OP-3 to 5 respectively. Complainant his son Pardeep Singh are residing in the same house, where connection was installed and construction was going on. The complainant is the actual owner of that land. So in these circumstances, the OPs have rightly demanded this amount from the complainant. The complainant has filed the present complaint only to escape from his and his son’s liability to pay this amount to OPs. The complainant is duty bound to pay the amount of Rs.62,214/- assessed by the checking party.The connection of complainant cannot be restored until or unless defaulting amount is cleared by him. The OPs charged this amount correctly. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Complainant and his family have not suffered any harassment or mental agony due to it. The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint to escape his liability and it may be dismissed.

9                           The case of the complainant is that he is having a domestic electric connection and he is regularly paying all the electricity consumption bills to OPs. He paid last bill on 1.10.2015, but on 7.10.2015, the OPs illegally disconnected his electric connection without giving any prior information or notice, which caused him great inconvenience. He approached OP-2, who told him that amount of Rs 62,214/-is due towards his son and insisted him to pay that amount otherwise they refused to restore his electric connection. The Ops cannot claim this amount from complainant. The Ops argued that Pardeep Singh is son of complainant. There was an electric connection in the WSD category which is meant for SC/ST categories, was installed in the name of one Pyara Singh  in a portion of the house owned by Pardeep Singh. On checking by OPs, it is found that there was no residence of Pyara Singh in that portion of house and said connection was being used by Pardeep Singh son of complainant and he was using the electricity from that connection for constructing his new house and it is a case of unauthorised use of electricity as Pardeep singh belongs to general category and WSD connection meant for SC/ST category on concessional rates. The checking party assessed amount of unauthorised use of electricity and on the basis of that report, the demand notice of Rs 62,214/- was sent to Pardeep Singh son of complainant and were also sent reminders to him to pay that amount but he did not pay the said amount. OPs are entitled to recover this amount from complainant as he and his son are residing in the same house. So, they correctly disconnected the connection of the complainant due to non payment of this amount. On it, the ld counsel for complainant argued that complainant is not liable to pay that amount as he has no concern with the electric connection issued in the name of Pyara Singh and have no knowledge about it. Even the OPs cannot claim the amount which is due towards his son. The allegation of OPs is that the connection which is issued in the name of Pyara Singh is illegally used by Pardeep Singh and they demanded defaulting amount from Pardeep Singh. First of all, the question whether the amount due to Pyara Singh can be recovered from Pardeep Singh or not is to be decided and it is, after that the question of whether amount due to Pardeep Singh can be recovered from the complainant will arise. The OPs cannot recover this amount from complainant. He is not liable to pay this amount to OPs. Ld Counsel for complainant put reliance on the citation 2004(1) CLT 622 titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Garjit Kaur, wherein our Hon’ble State Commission decided that Electricity Bill–Amount outstanding against one connection added tobill of another connection related to the complainant-respondent–No law shown which permitted the amount outstanding against one connection that could be added in the bill of another connection if the demand related to the same consumer–Order of the District Forum allowing the complaint upheld. He further put reliance on the case decided by our Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No1066 of 2007 decided on 30.08.2013 titled as Kuldeep Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board wherein our Hon’ble State Commission observed that even if the electricity dues are payable by the father of the appellant, then the same should be recovered from the property of the father of the appellant. The respondents cannot recover any dues from the appellant. It is settled proposition of law that any amount outstanding against one electric connection cannot be added in the bill of another connection. The moral as well as pious obligation grounds are not to be considered above the law, rules and regulations. In the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board supra there is also Electricity Board demanded the amount of electricity connection which was earlier running in the same premises disconnected in the name of father of complainant which was disconnected for non payment of bill. Our Hon’ble State Commission held that the Board cannot claim this amount from the complainant. He argued that Ops cannot demand this amount from the complainant.

10                              In the light of above discussion and arguments advanced by parties and case law produced by the complainant, we are fully convinced with complainant and he has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs cannot claim the amount of connection bearing no. SM 93/0164P which was installed in the name of Pyara Singh son of Alia Singh and was allegedly used by Pardeep Singh son of complainant from the complainant. OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs 62,214/- which is demanded by them from complainant on account of sundry charges pertaining to a/c no. SM 93/0164 P in the name of Pyara Singh son of Alia Singh allegedly used by Pardeep Singh son of  complainant. OPs are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs 15,000/-deposited by complainant with OPs in compliance of the order dt 7.10.2015 of this Forum in his subsequent bills.OPs are further directed not to disconnect the connection of complainant without prior intimation or notice to him. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 10.02.2016

                   Member                   Member               President                     (Parampal Kaur)                 (P Singla)           (Ajit Aggarwal)