Punjab

Sangrur

CC/36/2015

Chajju Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S. Nandpuri

01 Jun 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  36

                                                Instituted on:    19.01.2015

                                                Decided on:       01.06.2015

Chajju Singh son of Sucha Singh, R/o Village Chhajli, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     Asstt. Executive Engineer, PSPC Ltd, Sub Division (Rural), Udham Singh Wala Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Advocate.

For opposite parties  :       Shri P.L. Bansal, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order:

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Chajju Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by getting electricity tubewell motor connection number AP-10/3393. The complainant got the said tube well connection under family partition scheme by depositing the consideration amount of Rs.45,000/- as demanded by the OPs vide receipt number 299 dated 13.08.2010. The tubewell connection in question was released by the OPs in the month of February 2011 and nothing was outstanding against the said connection. The grievance of the complainant is that OP number 2 sent a letter number 3741 dated 20.09.2013 demanding an amount of Rs.60,740/- from the complainant and in case of non deposit of the same, face disconnection of electricity tubewell motor connection in question, which is said to be totally wrong and illegal. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw/quash the letter number 3741 dated 20.09.2013 demanding an amount of Rs.60,740/- and not to disconnect the electricity connection in question. The complainant has further prayed for payment of Rs.11000/-   as compensation on account of mental torture, agony and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply, legal objections on the grounds that the maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts and jurisdiction have been taken up.  On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant is a consumer of electricity connection bearing account number AP-10/3393 and release of tube well motor connection is also admitted after deposit of an amount of Rs.45,000/-.  It is also admitted that the OP number 2 issued notice number 3741 dated 20.09.2013 for making payment of Rs.60,740/-. It is stated that the complainant is not a consumer of OPs.  It is submitted that the connection in question was released under family partition. It is stated that the total estimate including the expenses of pole and wire etc. was prepared which  came to Rs.105740/- but the PSPCL inadvertently demanded Rs.45000/-  of service connection charges and the complainant deposited the same and the connection was released. Further case of the OPs is that at the time of auditing the account of the OP No.2 in 2013 found that the  complainant was liable to pay the actual amount of the estimate so notice has  been issued to the complainant, as such, it is stated that the amount of Rs.60740/- has rightly been demanded from the complainant. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

3.             In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-14 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 acceptance, for these reasons.

5.             It is an admitted fact the complainant is a consumer of electricity tube well motor connection bearing account number AP-10/3393, which was released under the family partition scheme by depositing Rs.45,000/-, against the demand notice, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-13. It is also not in dispute that the complainant also submitted a copy of test report to the Ops and thereafter the OPs released the tubewell motor connection in question.

6.             In the present case, the dispute is over the demand of Rs.60740/- raised by the OPs through notice number 3741 dated 20.09.2013, a copy of which is on record is Ex.OP-13, wherein it has been stated that the amount was deposited in less according to the sales regulations.  It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that the connection to the complainant was given out of turn on priority basis under the partition scheme, so the complainant was liable to pay the actual expenditure incurred in providing the connection which could not be got deposited at the time of release of the connection to the complainant.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant had deposited all the charges according to the demand notice issued by the OPs and no such amount remains due against the complainant nor such an amount was ever demanded from the complainant.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended vehemently that it is not open for the Ops to demand such an amount (arrears) after a period of two years.  In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the demand notice was issued to the complainant for deposit of Rs.45000/- and the complainant deposited the said amount vide receipt no. 299 dated 13.08.2010 and according to the OPs, the said amount of Rs.60740/- was recoverable, whereas the OPs have demanded such an amount of Rs.60740/- vide notice number 3741 dated 20.09.2013 i.e. after a period of more than three years, which is a clear cut violation of their own memo issued by Er. In Chief/Commercial, PSEB, Patiala vide memo number 3941/4555/DB-100/L dated 12.01.2007 regarding recovery of arrears regarding statutory requirement of ACT-2003.  The relevant portion of the memo is reproduced below:-

“…. As per Electricity Act, 2003 under section 56(2) no sum 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 electricity….”

7.             We further perused section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is also reproduced below:-

“(2)  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.”

8.             Admittedly, in the present case, the demand notice was issued to the complainant and the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.45000/- vide receipt number 299 dated 13.08.2010 and according to the OPs, the said amount of Rs.60740/- was recoverable at that time which could not be recovered from the complainant, whereas the OPs have demanded an amount of Rs.60740/- vide notice number 3741 dated 20.09.2013 i.e. after a period of more than three years, as such, in view of Section 56(2) mentioned above, we find that notice dated 20.09.2013 demanding an amount of Rs.60740/- is not sustainable under the law and the same deserves to be withdrawn/quashed.  We are also of the view that the OPs are deficient by raising such a demand of Rs.60740/- against the complainant vide notice, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-1 (Ex.OP-13).  Moreover, there is no clear cut explanation from the side of the OPs that why the demand of Rs.60740/- was not raised against the complainant earlier within the stipulated period according to section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw notice number 3741 dated 20.09.2013 demanding an amount of Rs.60740/-.  We further order the OPs to refund the amount, if any deposited by the complainant against the above said demand.  The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- 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.

                Announced.

                June 1, 2015.

 

 

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

   Member                 Member                       President

 

 

       

                                                                                               

                                                                                   

BBS/-