Punjab

Sangrur

CC/109/2015

Angrej Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Mahesh Satija

14 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

 

                                                Complaint No.    109

                                                Instituted on:      10.03.2015

                                                Decided on:       14.08.2015

 

 

Angrej Kaur wife of Darshan Singh Walia, resident of Near S.P.S. Public School, Mangwal, Near Patiala Bye-pass, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     Asstt. Executive Engineer, P.S.P.C. Ltd. Sub Division, Sangrur Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

3.     S.D.O. PSPCL, Sohian Road, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                                ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Mahesh Satija, 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.             Smt. Angrej Kaur, 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 the consumer of two electricity connections bearing account number S46MN571610P and S46KP68-1453 of which the complainant has been paying the bills regularly.  It is further averred that on 3.6.2013 the employees of the OPs visited at Mangwal where the electricity connection bearing account number S46MN571610P has been installed and told that the connection is being used for commercial purpose.  On 5.6.2013 the complainant moved an application to OP number 3 and submitted that the connection is domestic one and has already deposited Rs.2360/- on 22.3.2013 towards the domestic bill.  It is further averred that OP number 3 appointed Shri Faqir Chand, JE for inspection of the connection, who submitted his report after inspection stating that there is no shop and the connection is being used for domestic purpose.  It is further stated that the OPs disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant without any intimation to the complainant.  It is further averred that on 16.4.2014, the complainant moved another application to OP number 3 for restoration of the electricity connection in question and the application was marked to Shri Ram Chand, AEE and the connection was restored without knowledge of the complainant.  On 28.11.2014 complainant moved an application to OP number 3 to deposit the bill of remaining 123 units which were consumed by her, but the OPs did not get the bill deposited.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to restore the electricity connection in question and further to pay compensation amounting to Rs.90,000/- for mental tension, agony and harassment.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the Ops have been dragged into unwanted litigation.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs under both the connections as mentioned in the complaint.  The case of the OPs is that the connection of the complainant was checked by Meter Inspector and found that the complainant was using the connection for commercial purposes.  The concerned JE also reported that vegetables were sown and the complainant also irrigating the vegetables from the AP electric connection which is running on some distance.  After receiving the report, the category of the connection was transferred from commercial to DS tariff. It is stated further that OP number 2 issued bill dated 18.2.2013 for Rs.19,174/- and so many bills were issued thereafter, but the complainant failed to pay the bills to the OPs, as such, the connection of the complainant was disconnected by the OPs on 23.2.2015 against PDCO number 14/347343 dated 23.2.2015.   Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of application dated 5.6.2013, Ex.C-2 copy of application dated 16.4.2014, Ex.C-3 copy of application dated 28.11.2014, Ex.C-4 copy of electricity bill, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 affidavits, Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 are the electricity receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OPs/1 affidavit, Ex.OPS/2 bill detail and closed evidence.

 

 

4.             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 dismissal, for these reasons.

 

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the consumer of two electricity connections in question.   In the present case the dispute is over the disconnection of the electricity connection bearing account number S46MN571610P for which the complainant has filed the present complaint for its restoration.                   

 

 

6.             We have perused the written reply filed by the Ops wherein the OPs have clearly stated that the complainant did not deposit the electricity bills for the period from 18.2.2013 to 22.12.2014 and the last bill dated 22.12.2014 was for Rs.21,734/-, as such the OPs issued PDCO bearing number 14/347343 dated 23.2.2015 which was effected on 23.2.2015 for non payment of the electricity bills.  It is not the case of the complainant that he deposited all the electricity bills as mentioned above, nor has produced any receipt of deposit of the bills on record to show that the same were duly paid/deposited with the OPs.  Further the complainant has not filed any rejoinder stating that he had already deposited the bills in question with the OPs.  The OPs have also produced the sworn affidavit of one Er. Sukhbir Singh Cheema, Assistant Engineer, PSPCL Sangrur wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the complainant did not deposit the electricity bills amounting to Rs.21,734/-, as such the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected.  The OPs have also produced on record the detail of the bills, a copy of which is on record as Ex.OP/2, which the complainant did not deposit from the period from 18.2.2013 to 7.12.2014.  As such, it seems that the complainant herself is a wrong doer, who has filed the present complaint by concealing the material fact of not depositing the electricity bills.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has failed to prove her case of any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The Hon’ble National Commission in Ramanbhai Somabhai Patel versus Chief Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board 1994(1) CLT 155 (NC) has held that when the complainant is in the arrears in the matter of payment of bills, the Electricity Board had the right and authority under law to disconnect or cut off the supply of electric energy to the premises of the consumer who makes default in payment. Such a disconnection cannot give rise to any cause of action for recovering of compensation from the Board.  The same are the circumstances in the present case, as the complainant has failed to deposit the regular bills for consumption of electricity. 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that the OPs are not entitled to recover the bill dated 18.2.2013 for Rs.19,174/-  being it is more than two years old in view of section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the complainant  that  section 56(2) clearly provides “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.”  It is worth mentioning here that in the present case the OPs have been regularly issuing the bills by carrying forward the arrears in the next bill, as is evident from the statement of dues, which is on record as Ex.OP/2.  As such, we feel that section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not at all helpful to the case of the complainant.

 

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 14, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member