Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/109

Dharamjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Vipin Kumar Tayal

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :      109

Date of Institution : 19.08.2015

Date of Decision :    10.02.2016

 

Dharamjit Singh s/o Surjit Singh, s/o Inder Singh  r/o Mohalla Purbian Mistrian Wali Gali, Faridkot, Tehsil & District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its SDO, Faridkot (City Sub Division, PSPCL)

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Assistant Executive Engineer Faridkot (City Sub Division, PSPCL)

3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.

   .........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 Vipan Tayal, 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 transfer the connection in the name of complainant, to enhance the load and for further directing OPs to pay Rs50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 5,500/-as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that electricity connection bearing  consumer no. LD120120N and a/c no 3000384006 is running in his premises in the name of his grandfather, who has been died. As said connection is installed in his premises and he is consuming the power and is paying all the bills regularly. In order to get transferred the connection on his name, which is in the name of his grandfather and to enhance the meter load from 1KW to 5KW, complainant deposited  the file alongwith Rs 3,350/- with Ops vide receipt no.426 dt 13.08.2014 and at the time of depositing the said file, the employee of OPs assured complainant that they would transfer the above said meter connection on his name in their record within a few days and also assured to enhance his meter load, but complainant was surprised to see the bill in the name of     grandfather as meter connection was not still transferred to his name and meter load was also not enhanced. On receiving the said bill, complainant visited the office of OPs with request to transfer the meter connection in his name and to enhance his meter load, but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. Complainant has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to transfer the meter connection which is in the name of his late grandfather to his name and to enhance his meter load and to pay Rs 50,000/-for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs 5,500/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                           Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 21.08.2015, 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 wherein asserted that complainant is not their consumer. It is averred that complainant did not give any information regarding date of death of his grandfather to OPs. The legal heirs of Sh Inder Singh, were required to get the connection changed in their name within 6 months of the death and as per rules and regulations of PSPCL, if transfer of connection is not obtained within 6 months of death of consumer, the connection is liable to be disconnected. It is further averred that complainant filed the application for change of name and deposited requisite security worth Rs 3,350/- and on receipt of his application, proper procedure was adopted and connection was changed in the name of complainant and connected load was sanctioned and enhanced to 3.620 KW. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant has not suffered any harassment or financial loss. 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 affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2  to 11 and closed the same.

6                             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajinder Kumar AEE as Ex.OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 and 3 and closed the evidence.

7                              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on file.

8                                   Ld Counsel for complainant argued that there is an electric connection which was earlier issued in the name of Inder Singh grandfather of complainant, who has already died. The complainant is in possession of the said electric connection and house where the said connection is installed and he is using electricity from it. He has been regularly paying all the bills to OPs. After the death of his grandfather, the complainant wanted to change the said connection in his own name and also to enhance the sanctioned load of the connection. For this purpose, he filed application and also submitted all the required documents and fulfilled all the formalities as per instructions of OPs. He also deposited requisite fee for the same on 13.08.2014. Copy of death certificate of Inder Singh is Ex C-6, copy of receipt regarding deposit of fees is Ex C-4 and copies of application and other requisite documents for change of name of user and to enhance the load are Ex C-7 to 11. At the time of deposit of file, the employees of OPs assured that they would transfer the connection in the name of complainant and enhance the meter load in their record within few days, but they did not change the name of user and enhanced the load. The complainant received monthly bills for electric connection from OPs in the name of his grandfather Inder Singh and in these bills, the sanctioned load is also not enhanced and the name of consumer is also not changed to the name of complainant. Complainant approached OPs a number of times and requested them to transfer the connection in his name and also to enhance the load, but every time, OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. These acts of Ops have caused unnecessary harassment and mental tension to complainant. It is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He has prayed that OPs may be directed to transfer the electric connection in dispute in his name and to enhance the electric load of the meter and also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

9                                   To controvert the arguments of complainant, OPs submitted that it is correct that electric connection in dispute was earlier issued in the name of Inder Singh, but they denied that complainant is their consumer. The complainant did not inform regarding the death of Inder Singh to Ops. As per rules of PSPCL, the connection is to be get changed in the name of heirs of consumer within 6 months of death otherwise that connection is liable to be disconnected. They admitted that complainant filed application for change of name and for enhancement of load and also deposited requisite fees and on receipt of the application, proper procedure was adopted and connection was changed in the name of complainant and sanctioned load was also enhanced to 3.620 KW. He placed on record copy of bill dt 19.09.2015 Ex Op-2, where name of consumer is shown as Dharamjit Singh/complainant and he also placed on record copy of document where the sanctioned load is shown as 3.620 KW as Ex OP-3. He argued that it is admitted by complainant that after the death of his grandfather, he has been using the said connection uninterruptedly. The change of name is required to update the record of Board and it has no nexus with the supply of electricity and use of electric connection. It is admitted by the complainant that after the death of his grandfather, till today, he is enjoying the electric connection without any interruption and as such, he has not suffered any loss. The said connection has already been changed in the name of complainant and load is also enhanced. The complainant has not suffered any financial loss or mental tension due to this act of OPs as they have already changed the connection in the name of complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. The present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

10                                       The case of the complainant is that the electric connection in dispute was earlier issued in the name of his grandfather and after his death, complainant is using the said connection. He applied to OPs for changing the said connection in his name and also to enhance the load of this connection. For this purpose, he fulfilled all the formalities and deposited requisite fees with them but they did not change the connection in his name and also did not enhance the load. In reply, OPs admitted that complainant applied for changing the connection in dispute in his name and also for enhancement of load and on his application, they have already changed the connection in dispute in the name of complainant and have also enhanced the load. In their support, they produced copy of bill dt 19.09.2015,where the name of consumer is shown as Dharamjit Singh and also the document showing sanctioned load as 3.620 KW as Ex Op-3 and submitted that as they have already changed the name of consumer and also enhanced the load, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On the contrary, the complainant has produced in his support copy of bill dt 25.07.2015 and 19.09.2015 as Ex C-3 and 5, which are issued to him by the Meter Reader of OPs at the spot. In these bills, the name of consumer reflects as Inder Singh and sanctioned load as 1.00 KW whereas copy of bill dt 19.09.2015, produced by OPs as Ex OP-2 showing the name of consumer as Dharamjit Singh and sanctioned load as 1.00 KW and not 3.620 KW as alleged by Ops. From these documents, it is apparent that OPs did not correct their all record regarding the change of name of consumer from the name of Inder Singh to the name of Dharamjit Singh/complainant and also did not enhance the sanctioned load of electric connection in their entire record, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, present complaint is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to change the name of consumer regarding electric connection in dispute from Inder Singh to Dharamjit Singh/complainant and also to enhance the sanctioned load of electric connection in their entire record. OPs are further directed to pay Rs 3,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs 2,000/-as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the 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)