DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 271/2015
Date of Institution : 30.07.2015
Date of Decision : 06.05.2016
Gora Lal son of Kansi Ram resident of Village Kale Ke Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.
2. XEN Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Division, Barnala.
3. Assistant Engineer Sub Division Dhanaula-1
4. SDO Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Dhanaula-1.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. V.S. Sandhu counsel for complainant.
Sh. Harpreet Singh counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (in short as Act) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others (in short as opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and is having an electric connection No. L-23L580537W and meter No. 665755 is installed in his premises in Village Kale-ke. The complainant alleged that he was astonished to receive the electricity consumption bill No. 1250 dated 16.6.2015 amounting to Rs. 68,350/- showing the consumption of 314 units. It is also alleged that earlier to this bill dated 17.4.2015 amounting to Rs. 65,210/- showing the consumption of 419 units was received. It is also alleged that on receipt of bill dated 17.4.2015 the complainant approached the opposite parties for correction of the bill and opposite parties modified the bill and the amount of Rs. 2,800/- was got deposited from him.
3. It is further averred that the perusal of the bill No. 1250 dated 16.6.2015 shows that a sum of Rs. 68,250/- has been shown due as balance amount of the present year though the earlier bill was corrected and amount was got deposited. Moreover, the status of the meter is shown as “O” meaning thereby that the meter is OK and complainant was not found by using the electricity in any illegal manner. It is also averred that the house in which the electric meter has been installed is a small house and only two light and fans are being used and no other work load is on the said meter. It is also averred that the opposite parties under the garb of the said bill wants to settle the amount of some other person. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to revise the electricity bill and not to recover the amount of the bills as referred to above.
2) To award Rs. 50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appears and filed a joint written statement taking legal objections on the grounds of no locus standi, estoppal, maintainability and jurisdiction.
4. On merits, it is pleaded that including other charges the outstanding is mentioned as Rs. 68,350/- as per bill No. 1250 dated 16.6.2015. However, they have denied that any correction made by them and any amount deposited by the complainant. It is also submitted that the bill dated 16.6.2015 was correct and genuine. They have also denied that they under the garb of the said bill intending to settle the amount of some other person. They have also denied any harassment caused to the complainant. They have finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, bills Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, copy of legal notice Ex.C-4, postal receipts Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7, copy of letter No. 571 dated 7.7.2015 Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh Additional SDO, Dhanaula Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
8. In order to prove his case, complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1 wherein he has specifically stated that he got an electric connection No. L-23KL580537W from the opposite party and meter number 665755 is installed in his premises in Village Kale-Ke. He further specifically stated that said electric meter is installed in a small house and only tubelight and fans are being used and no other work load is on the said meter. He also stated that said meter is shown as “O” meaning thereby the status of the meter is OK and he is not using the electricity in any illegal manner. He further stated in his affidavit that, however he got an electricity consumption bill dated 17.4.2015 amounting to Rs. 65,210/- of 419 Units and subsequently got a bill No. 1250 dated 16.6.2015 showing the amount of Rs. 68,250/- showing the consumption of 314 units. He further stated that the opposite party under the garb of the said bill intends to settle the amount of some other person.
9. To support his case further he has placed another important document Ex.C-8 which is written by the opposite party to the Advocate of the complainant in reply to the legal notice. In this letter the opposite party has stated that an electric connection was running in the name of Surjit Singh son of Gora Singh resident of Kale-Ke which is SP connection Account No. SP 19/771 and that connection was used for tubewell and through the connection code No. 3/84493 dated 22.4.2013 that connection was disconnected permanently and arrears of Rs. 62,414/- was outstanding against that connection and this amount was not deposited by the consumer Surjit Singh. It is further mentioned that a notice No. 346 dated 25.3.2015 was sent to Surjit Singh son of Gora Singh for depositing the said amount but the notice was received back then the notice was sent by hand to Surjit Singh but despite that the said amount was not deposited. In this letter it is further mentioned that one domestic connection is running in the name of Gora Singh son of Kansi Ram and the above arrears are charged/debited in that account because Surjit Singh is the son of Gora Singh.
10. To support further his case the complainant has placed on record two electric bills Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-2 showing the consumption of units as 419 and 314 respectively and in the bill Ex.C-3 which is the latest bill shown the previous amount as Rs. 62,414/-.
11. Now the question arises whether the opposite party is competent to recover the arrears to the tune of Rs. 62,414/- pertaining to Surjit Singh from the complainant being his father. It is clear from the letter written by the opposite party Ex.C-8 that Surjit Singh was having a separate SP connection from which he was using electricity for running his tubewell and it is also clear that the arrears of the said amount is recoverable from the said consumer. The letter Ex.C-8 also shows that the opposite party intends to recover the said amount from the father of said Surjit Singh being his father and it is submitted that under legal and moral obligation the father is to make the payment. However, the contention of the opposite party is untenable. Firstly prior to recovery of the charges as mentioned in the bill, it is mandatory on the part of the opposite party to issue notice to the complainant explaining the reasons for the said recovery. But no such notice has been issued to the complainant or even the opposite party not stated a word in the written version regarding issuance of any notice. Secondly, the opposite party failed to prove that the complainant and his father are residing in the same premises and the complainant had consumed the said electricity and they were both the consumers of the old electric SP tubewell connection. No document or bill has been placed on the record to show the said arrears is in the name of the complainant. It is also not disputed that the present connection which is in the name of the complainant is a domestic connection whereas the connection SP is meant for consuming electricity for tubewell purpose. Therefore, it cannot be stated that both the connections are in the premises of the complainant. Moreover, the opposite party has not cited any rule/instruction to show that the impugned recovery can be effected from the complainant being moral duty of his father. There is also nothing on the record that the complainant has inherited the property of his son.
12. In view of the above discussion there is merit in the present complaint and the same is accepted and the impugned demand of Rs. 62,414/- shown in the bills dated 17.4.2015 and 16.6.2015 is set aside and the opposite party is directed to issue the fresh bills on the basis of the actual consumption of the complainant for the relevant period. The opposite parties are also at liberty to recover the disputed amount from the said Surjit Singh as per law/rules. No order as to cost or compensation. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
6th Day of May 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
