DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 256 of 6.7.2017

                                      Decided on:   13.8.2021

Gian Ram son of Khema Ram, resident of Duttal Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., (Powercom) Head Office: Mall Road, Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.(Powercom) , Sub Division:Patran, District Patiala through the Assistant Executive Sub Divisional officer, Sub Division, Patran, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.Mohit Kansal,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal,counsel for OPs.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Gian Ram (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is consumer of electricity connection No.S16KF841084Y and falls under the schedule caste category.
3. It is averred that the electricity meter is installed outside the premises of the complainant since 2012 and complainant is availing subsidy on meter. It is averred that he received bill for the period of 6.3.2017 to 7.5.2017 issued by the OPs in which  the amount of Rs.17,513/-was demanded and an amount of Rs.17379.86p was added as miscellaneous charges which is totally illegal , null and void and arbitrary. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 23.5.2017 upon the OPs with the request to withdraw the bill dated 7.5.2017 and also to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation and Rs.5000/-as costs of legal notice but the OPs did not pay any heed. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to withdraw the bill dated 7.5.2017; to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation and Rs.5000/-as costs of the complaint.
4. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is consumer of aforesaid electricity connection. It is also admitted that the complainant received a bill for the period from 6.3.2017 to 7.5.2017 and an amount of Rs.17,513/- has been demanded by the OPs, in which Rs.17,379/- is shown as miscellaneous charges.
6. It is pleaded that earlier connection No.KF84/0568M was running in the name of the complainant and an amount of Rs.34758/- was pending against the said connection, the complainant did not make the payment and the said connection was disconnected. Later on the complainant as well as his son applied for another connections in their names .It is further pleaded that the OPs also sent notice No.393 dated 24.3.2017 to the complainant for the deposit of the amount of Rs.17,379/-but he did not deposit the amount and as such the amount of Rs.34,758/- of previous connection was transferred to the current connections of complainant and his son equally i.e. Rs.17,379/-each and as per regulations of Electricity Supply Code and Related matters,2014, the complainant is liable to pay the amount of previous connection. As such there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs .After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In support of the complaint, the complainant alongwith his  counsel has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his affidavit alongwith  documents Exs.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Mahinder Singh, SDO alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that electricity meter was got installed in the year 2012 and the complainant is getting rebate of schedule caste category. The ld. counsel further argued that bill for the period of 6.3.2017 to 7.5.2017 was received in which Rs.17,513/-was demanded. The ld. counsel further argued all the documents of the OPs show that this amount does not belong to Gian Ram.The ld. counsel has relied upon the citation Managing Director, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Hisar and others Vs. Inderpal 2015(2)CLT 401.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that amount of Rs.34758/- was due towards the complainant regarding previous meter and that amount has been added in the account of the complainant and his son, so the complaint be dismissed.
12. To prove this case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is the disputed bill, in which sum of Rs.17379/- has been shown, Ex.C2 is legal notice and Exs.C3 and C4 are postal receipts, Ex.C5 is voter card of Gian Ram.
13. On the other hand, Sh.Mahinder Singh, SDO Sub-uraban Sub Division PSP?CL Patran has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed that amount of Rs.34758/-was due against the previous connection of Gian Ram and the same was added equally in the current connections of the complainant and his son in the sum of Rs. 17379/-each.Ex.OP1 is the office order of PSPCL, in which name is mentioned as Gian Singh and not Gian Ram,Ex.OP2 is letter of PSPCL. In the same, it is mentioned that there was previous account of Gian Singh and amount of Rs.34758/- was due towards Gian Singh, Ex.OP3 is important document of PSPCL, in which the name is mentioned as Gian Singh and his father name is not mentioned, the date is mentioned as 15.2.2005 and amount of Rs.34758/- has been shown. From this document it is not proved that this amount is of Gian Ram as the name of Gian Singh is mentioned and father’s name is not mentioned whereas in this document the father’s name of all other consumers is mentioned and this document is of 2005. It has been decided by the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in the case of Manging Director, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Hisar and others Vs. Inderpal, that electricity bill was issued after the two years of the permanent disconnection of electricity connection of complainant and same is barred by time. In this judgment there is reference of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR,1977 Supreme Court 2221, in which it has been held that, where the record is time barred there is litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay. But in the present case the amount pertains to 2005 and first time the notice was issued in the year 2017 i.e. after 12 years.
14. Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act,2003, provide period of two years for recovery of amount due under the bill, reads as under: 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 arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity”
15. As such, any amount due from any defaulter to electricity department is to be recovered within two years from the date if become due first. Admittedly the amount became due in June,2005.As such the said amount was not raised in any subsequent bill issued to Gian Ram as the connection was even disconnected. In this eventuality the aforesaid amount has become time barred when the same was added in the bill in question issued to the complainant in the year,2017.
16. Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act,2003.In case titled Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs. Rajinder Kumar, 2013(4) Civil Court cases,247, an amount was claimed by the electricity board in the year 2000 which pertained to the period 21.10.1992 to 10.12.1994 and it was held by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that the claim for outstanding dues is barred by law of limitation.
17. There is document on the file. This is a legal notice sent by Harkirat Singh Dhaliwal, the ld. counsel of PSPCL to Gian Singh and not to Gian Ram, in which it is mentioned that his electricity connection was disconnected permanently in the year 2005 and the amount of arrears of Rs.34758/- is due. Although this document is not exhibited but as the proceedings of this Commission are summary in nature, therefore, this document can be taken into consideration.
18. So taking into consideration the law laid down by Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in the case of Managing Director, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Hisar and others Vs. Inderpal (supra), the complaint is allowed and the OPs are restrained from recovering the amount of Rs.17,379/- from the complainant, however the complainant will pay his regular bill. There is no order as to costs and compensation.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:13.8.2021

                                   Vinod Kumar Gulati                 Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                             Member                                       President