Punjab

Sangrur

CC/624/2014

Bharpur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S. Ratol

20 Mar 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                     Complaint no. 624              

                                                                   Instituted on:  19.11.2014

                                                                     Decided on:    20.03.2015

 

Bharpur Singh son of Bhagat Singh, resident of Village Badla, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Supply Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala through its M.D.

2.     Assistant Engineer, (SDO), City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Supply Corporation Limited, Lasoi, Tehsil Malerkotla District Sangrur.

      ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri S.S.Ratol, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES  :     Shri Sudarshan Garg, Advocate                     

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Bharpur Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he is a consumer of the OPs having domestic electric connection bearing account number L31BL360239M. The OP No.2 issued a notice number 841 dated 27.06.2014 on the ground that an amount of Rs.1,18,404/-  is allegedly due towards M/s Jagowal Rice Mills at Village Jagowal, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. After receiving the notice the complainant approached the OP No.2 and submitted the copy of the partnership deed dated 25.08.2011 as well as explained  his position that the complainant is the only silent partner in this rice mills and has no concern with the loss of firm. Thereafter the officials of the OPs visited the house of the complainant on 17.09.2014 and disconnected the connection of the complainant. The complainant again visited the office of OPs and requested them to connect the connection but they flatly refused to do so.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to restore  the electric connection,  

ii)     OPs be directed to withdraw the notice number 841 dated 27.06.2014,  

iii)    OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability and suppression of material facts have been taken up.  On merits, it is stated that as per record of the OPs, the complainant is one of the partner of Jagowal Rice Mills, Jagowal along with other partners.  It is denied that the complainant is not responsible for the loss of the firm.  Due to non-payment  of the electricity bill  the OPs disconnected the electric connection of the said rice mill.  The complainant is the active partner of the said Rice Mill and has been conducting the business of the sheller in the ordinary course.  It is settled law that each and every partner of the firm is jointly and severally liable for the said firm.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered document Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8 and closed evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that OPs had wrongly issued notice number 841 dated 27.06.2014 for an amount of Rs.1,18,404/- to the complainant which was allegedly due towards M/s Jagowal Rice Mills at Village Jagowal.  He has also stated that the amount outstanding of one connection cannot be recovered from the other connection of the same person. Learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the OPs have wrongly demanded the amount of Rs.1,18,404/-  from the complainant and disconnected the connection due to recovery of the same. He has also cited judgment namely Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Garjit Kaur, 2004(1) CLT 622.

5.               On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant  is the partner of Jagowal Rice Mills, Jagowal and no dissolution deed has been produced by the complainant. So, being the partner the complainant is also liable to pay the amount of electricity bills. Learned counsel for the Ops has also argued that according to Section 28 of the Partnership Act under the doctrine of holding out and law of estoppal applies on the complainant and he is liable to pay the amount. Learned counsel for the OPs has also cited ruling namely Atul Puri Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, 2012 (1) CLT 324 wherein it has been stated that there is no irregularity in claiming the amount from another electric account which is admittedly being used by the complainant.

6.             Admittedly the complainant is shareholder of M/s Jagowal Rice Mills, Jagowal, Tehsil Malerkoltla and he has produced the alleged partnership deed executed in the year 2011 Ex.C-1 but the OPs have produced the copy of partnership deed which was executed in the year 2009  Ex.OP-7  which was  produced by the complainant at the time of obtaining the electric connection. The complainant has not produced any dissolution deed between the previous partners and partnership deed Ex.C-1 produced by him  has not shown that which of the partner has purchased the stamp papers for the partnership deed nor it is shown that on which date the stamp paper was purchased for writing the same. The complainant has not challenged the amount due towards M/s Jagowal Rice Mills, Ragowal in which he is a partner. Moreover, the complainant is a partner in both the partnership deed  Ex.C-1 and Ex.OP-7. The main point of  the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant is that according to document Ex.C-1 the complainant is not a shareholder in the loss of M/s Jagowal Rice Mills, Ragowal. As we have earlier discussed, the complainant is a partner of M/s Jagowal Rice Mills, Jagowal and he is also shareholder in  the profits of the firm. So, there is no irregularity if the OPs  will recover the amount of due towards electricity used by  the M/s Jagowal Rice Mills, Jagowal from one of its partners i.e. complainant who can adjust the same  in  the account of the partners which is maintained for profits because he is still partner of the firm.  The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable to the present case rather the citation produced by the OPs is fully applicable because the electricity is used in the account of M/s Jagowal Rice Mills in which the complainant is a partner.  

7.             So, in view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed however with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.   

Announced

                March 20, 2015

 

 

( Sarita Garg)           ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                      

        Member                 Member                          President

 

BBS/-