Punjab

Sangrur

CC/799/2015

Hardev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S. Nandpuri

15 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                                                      Complaint No.799

                                                                                       Instituted on:    10.08.2015

                                                                                       Decided on:       15.03.2016

 

 

Hardev Singh son of Gurbax Singh, R/O Village Chatha Nanhera, 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 Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Hardev Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) 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 KF-3378. The complainant got the said tube well connection under family partition scheme by depositing the consideration amount of Rs.54,000/- as demanded by the OPs at the time of releasing the connection in question. The tubewell connection in question was released by the OPs by getting deposited whole of the amount.

 

2.             The grievance of the complainant is that OP number 2 sent a letter number 3749 dated 20.09.2013 demanding an amount of Rs.58,576/- 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. It is further averred that the complainant deposited Rs.40,000/- under protest vide receipt number 169 dated 19.11.2014, receipt number 360 dated 28.05.2015, receipt number 224 dated 23.5.2014 and receipt number 66 dated 24.12.2014 under threat of disconnection of the electricity connection in question. 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 3749 dated 20.09.2013 demanding an amount of Rs.58,576/- and not to disconnect the electricity connection in question. The complainant has also prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- so deposited with the Ops along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint are taken up.

 

4.             On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant is a consumer of electricity connection bearing account number KF/3378 and release of tube well motor connection is also admitted after deposit of an amount of Rs.54,000/-.  It is also admitted that OP number 2 issued notice number 3749 dated 20.9.2013 for making payment of Rs.58,576/-. It is stated that the complainant is not a consumer as he is not paying any amount for electricity charges.  It is submitted that the connection in question was released under family partition scheme. It is stated that after approval of the case of the complainant, demand notice number 433 dated 11.6.2010 was issued for deposit of an amount of Rs.54,000/-  and accordingly the complainant deposited the amount and submitted the test report. It is stated that the amount involved was to be Rs.97,048/- on the same day. Further case of the OPs is that the account of the complainant along with other consumers was checked by the audit staff and it was pointed out by the audit staff through half margin note number 28 dated 31.5.2013 that the amount of Rs.58,576/- was recoverable from the complainant, as such, it is stated that the amount of Rs.58,576/- has rightly been demanded from the complainant. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of notice dated 20.9.2013, Ex.C-3 copy of pass book, Ex.C-4 copy of receipt dated 19.11.2014, Ex.C-5 copy of receipt dated 28.05.2015, Ex.C-6 copy of receipt dated 23.05.2014 and Ex.C-7 copy of receipt dated 24.12.2013 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of A&A form, Ex.OP-2 copy of letter dated 09.06.2010, Ex.OP-3 copy of demand notice, Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5 copies of affidavits, Ex.OP-6 copy of indemnity bond, Ex.OP-7 copy of estimate, Ex.OP-8 copy of sketch, Ex.OP-9 copy of installation order, Ex.OP-10 copy of SCO, Ex.OP-11 copy of half margin note, Ex.OP-12 copy of circular regarding 16% cost charges, Ex.OP-13 copy of notice, Ex.OP-14 copy of request letter, Ex.OP-15 to Ex.OP-17 copies of receipts, Ex.OP-18 affidavit, Ex.OP-19 copy of notification dated 24.5.2010, Ex.OP-20 copy of pass book close evidence.

 

6.             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.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact the complainant is a consumer of electricity tube well motor connection bearing account number KF-3378, which was released under the family partition scheme by depositing an amount of Rs.54,000/-, against the demand notice, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-3. 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.

 

8.             In the present case, the dispute is over the demand of Rs.58,576/- raised by the OPs through notice number 3749 dated 20.09.2013, a copy of which is on record is Ex.C-2, 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 establishment charges @ 16% of the cost of estimate were required to be got deposited, 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 dated 11.6.2010 was issued and according to the OPs, the said amount was recoverable, whereas the OPs have demanded such an amount of Rs.58,576/- vide notice number 3349 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….”

 

 

9.             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.”

 

 

10.           Admittedly, in the present case, the demand notice bearing number 433 is dated 11.6.2010 and according to the OPs, the said amount of Rs.58,576/- was recoverable at that time which could not be recovered from the complainant, whereas the OPs have demanded an amount of Rs.58.576/- vide notice number 3749 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.58,576/- 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.58,576/-against the complainant vide notice, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2.  It is worth mentioning here that the above said demand of Rs.58,576/-, the complainant has already deposited an amount of Rs.40,000/- in four equal instalments of Rs.10,000/- each on 19.11.2014, 28.05.2015, 23.05.2014 and 24.12.2013, the copies of receipts are on record as Ex.C-4, Ex.C-5, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7, respectively.  As such, in view of the above mentioned section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the demand raised by the Ops has become voidable and cannot be recovered from the complainant though the complainant as a gesture of goodwill voluntarily of his own was to repay the same in instalments.  So, whatever the amount the complainant has deposited that will remain with the OPs and will not be refundable to the complainant.  As such, the Ops are restrained to recover the remaining amount of Rs.18,576/- from the complainant in view of section 56(2) of the Electricity Act aforesaid.

 

 

11.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to withdraw the remaining amount of Rs.18,576/- raised vide notice number 3749 dated 20.09.2013.  The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant an  amount of Rs.5,000/- 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.

                Pronounced.

                March 15, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member