DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 213 of 29.9.2015
Decided on: 20.10.2016
Jagdish Kumar aged about__ years, son of Sh.Rajesh, resident of House No.7, Rattan Nagar, Block-F, Tripuri, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, West Sub Division, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Rahul Kamboj, Adv. counsel
for the complainant.
Sh.Harkirat Singh Dhaliwal,Adv. counsel for Ops.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Jagdish Kumar has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To rectify/correct the memo in question, on the basis of correct facts
- To recover the whole of the alleged amount of the memo from Sanju
- To restore his electricity connection
- To pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation
- To pay Rs.5000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 30.9.2011, he purchased a house from one Sanju son of Dana Dass, resident of Rattan Nagar, Tripuri, Patiala. It was agreed by the seller i.e. Sanju, that he shall be responsible to pay all the taxes, amount of electricity, water and sewerage bills with regard to the house. Thereafter, for the sake of getting the electricity connection and installation of the electric meter, he deposited an amount of Rs.1295/- as security with the office of the O.Ps. vide book No.D91258, receipt No.392 dated 21.11.2011 and he was issued domestic electricity connection bearing account No.3000121919, installed in his name. He received memo/notice No.1379 dated 28.5.2012 for an amount of Rs.44,641/- bearing accounts No.FA22/2799, FA51/0017 and FA22/2648. He approached the O.Ps. for the rectification of the said memo but to no effect. From suitable sources, it came to his notice that Accounts No.P18FA51/0017 and P18FA22/2648 are in the name of Vidya Rani of Rattan Nagar, Patiala and Shabnam of Rattan Nagar, Patiala, respectively. He was never deficient in making the payment of the electricity bills and nothing is due against him. He requested the O.Ps. to recover the amount from the earlier owner Sanju instead of doing so, the officials of the O.Ps. disconnected the electricity supply to his connection. He also received bill No.1000111557 dated 26.8.2013, for the electricity account number, issued in his name, for the total amount of Rs.55,286/- in which amount of Rs.44,641/- has been shown as sundry charges, which is totally wrong and illegal. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written version after taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum and that the complaint is barred by limitation. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was having electricity connection bearing a/c No.3000121919 at his premises. It is also stated that the connection of the complainant was disconnected for more than two years ago and he is no more consumer of the Ops. It is also admitted that the complainant received a memo/notice No.1379 dated 28.5.2012 for an amount of Rs.44,641/- regarding a/c Nos.P18FA51/0017 and P18FA22/2648, in the name of Sarvsmt. Vidya Rani and Shabnam, respectively. It is stated that earlier connection bearing No.FA51/0017 was running in the name of Smt.Vidya Rani and connection bearing No.FA22/2648 was running in the name of Smt. Shabnam, in the same house, which the complainant had purchased, but both of them did not make the payments of electricity bills regularly. As such the said connections were disconnected and an amount of Rs.44,641/- was pending as arrears of bills against the aforesaid connections. Now the said house has been purchased by the complainant, as such memo no.1379 dated 28.5.2012 was sent to the complainant regarding the amount of Rs.44,641/-. It is admitted that electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected due to non payment of the amount. It is stated that the sale deed was executed between the complainant and the previous owner as such the complainant can recover the amount from previous owner. It is admitted that the Ops sent a bill dated 26.8.2013 to the complainant for a sum of Rs.55,286/- out of which Rs.44,641/- has been shown as sundry charges. The complainant failed to deposit the amount of memo No.1379 dated 28.5.2012, as such the same was transferred to the account of the complainant. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of his complaint, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence EX.CA, sworn affidavit of the complainant,Ex.C1, copy of sale deed, Ex.C2 copy of memo no.1379 dated 28.5.2012, Ex.C3 copy of electricity bill dated 26.8.2013, Ex.C4 copy of receipt and closed the evidence.
5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Ops, tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Deepak Goyal, SDO, West Commercial P.S.P.C.L., Exsa.OP1 and OP2, copies of extracts of ledger, Ex.OP3 copy of extract of account statement, Ex.OP4 copy of memo no.1379 dated 28.5.2012, Ex.OP5 copy of disconnection order, Ex.OP6 copy of extract of detail of meter reading and closed the evidence.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that after purchase of house No.7, Rattan Nagar, Block-F, Tripuri, Patiala, complainant applied to the Ops for the installation of the electricity connection in the said house. The Ops issued him a receipt dated 21.11.2011. Thereafter, she received a memo/notice No.1379 dated 28.5.2012, for an amount of Rs.44,641 pertaining to account No.P18FA51/0017 and account No. PI8FA22/2648, which were in the name of Sarvsmt. Vidya Rani and Shabnam respectively. He approached and requested the OPs to withdraw this memo, issued against him because the outstaying amount of Rs.44,641/- shown in the said bill relates to some other persons and they can recover the said amount from the said persons. But the Ops did not pay any heed to his request and have sent a bill dated 26.8.2013,Ex.C3 for his electricity connection bearing No.3000121919 for a sum of Rs.55,286/- by adding the amount of Rs.44,641/- as sundry charges. The Ops cannot recover the said amount from him and prayed that complaint may be allowed and Ops be directed to compensate him as prayed for in the complaint.
7. The learned counsel for the OPs submitted that the electricity connections bearing a/c Nos.P18FA51/0017 and P18FA22/2648 were lying installed in the names of Vidya Rani and Shabnam in house No. 7, Rattan Nagar, Block-F,Tripuri, Patiala. An amount of Rs.44,641/-was pending as arrears of the bill against the said electricity connections. Complainant has purchased the said house. In the sale deed,Ex.C1, it is categorically mentioned that he would be responsible to pay all the taxes and amount of electricity, water, sewerage bill, with regard to house No. 7, Rattan Nagar, Block-F,Tripuri, Patiala. As per regulation No.30.15 of Electricity Supply Code, 2014, complainant is liable to pay the outstanding amount against the said house. He further submitted that this complaint is not only liable to be dismissed on merits but also is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation because he has filed the complaint after the expiry of stipulated period of two years.
8. From the perusal of copies of ledgers, Exs.OP1 and OP2, it is apparent that the electricity connection bearings Nos.P18FA51/0017 and P18FA22/2648 were lying installed in the name of Sarvsmt. Vidya Rani and Shabnam, respectively at House No. 7, Rattan Nagar, Block-F, Tripuri, Patiala. The said house was purchased by the complainant vide sale deed Ex.C1 and presently he is the owner of the said house. From the contents of the sale deed, it is apparent that he promised to pay the dues, if any, found outstanding against the house, which he purchased on 30.9.2011. As per Regulation No.30.15 of Electricity Supply Code,2014, which reads as under:
“In case of transfer of property by sale/inheritance, the purchaser/heir shall be liable to pay all charges due with respect to such property and found subsequently recoverable from the consumer.”
complainant is liable to pay the outstanding amount to the Ops.We do not hesitate to conclude that the complaint is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
9. It may be stated that as per Section 24A, of the Act, the limitation period to file a complaint before the Consumer Forum is of two years, from the date on which cause of action has arisen. In the present case, lastly the cause of action has arisen on 26.8.2013, when the complainant received the bill dated 26.8.2013 for a sum of Rs.55,286/- in which an amount of Rs.44,641/- was added as sundry charges. As per Section 24A, he could have filed the complaint for redressal of his grievance on or before 25.8.2015, whereas, he has filed this complaint on 29.9.2015 i.e. after expiry of period of two years that too without filing of any application for condonation of delay. Thus the complaint is even liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation also.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint without any order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
Dated:20.10.2016
