Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/174

Jalwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

02 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                     CC No :            174 of 2017

Date of Institution : 02.06.2017

Date of Decision :   02.01.2019

 

Jalwant Singh aged about 89 years s/o Mehar Singh r/o Bir Sikhan Wala, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot. Mobile No. 94170-79719.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Urban, Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Kotkapura.                                   

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(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 withdraw the demand notice dated 12.05.2017 for Rs.12,087/- pertaining to account no.RW-339 and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant applied for Tube Well Connection with OP-2 on 11.04.2012 and as per priority given under Chairman Priority Quota, complainant deposited all the amount in compliance of demand notice issued by OP-2 and on fulfilling of all formalities and deposit of requisite charges, OPs issued tubewell connection to complainant under Chairman Priority Quota on 2.11.2012. it is submitted that complainant received demand notice/letter no.840 dated 12.05.2017 for Rs.12,087/- relating to estimate no.23067 year 2012-13, which is totally illegal as complainant has already deposited all the requisite charges as per demand notice and moreover, no detail of amount in estimate is supplied with the letter of demand and even it is time barred. On receiving the same, complainant approached the office of OP-2 with request to withdraw the said notice, but all in vain, rather OPs threatened to disconnect the connection in case of failure to deposit the amount sought. All this act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                   Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 5.06.2017, 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 estimate for installation of connection to the tune of Rs.75,542/-was made and complainant deposited the said amount, but inadvertently, in this estimate 16% establishment charges were not included. This mistake was detected by audit party and present amount is charged as per rules and regulations and accordingly, notice is sent to complainant. Amount raised in said demand notice is as per rules and there is no deficiency  in service on the part of OPs. 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 3 and closed the same.

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

7                                            We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

8                                                     From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that complainant applied for Tube Well Connection with OPs and as per Chairman Priority Quota, he deposited requisite fee in compliance of demand notice issued by OP-2 and on fulfilling all formalities, he was issued tubewell connection under Chairman Priority Quota on 2.11.2012. Complainant again received demand notice dated 12.05.2017 for Rs.12,087/- relating to estimate no.23067 year 2012-13, which is totally illegal as complainant has already deposited all the requisite charges as per demand notice and even, no detail of amount in estimate is supplied with the letter of demand. Notice issued by OPs is time barred. On receiving the same, complainant approached OPs and requested them to withdraw the same, but they paid no heed to his genuine requests, rather threatened to disconnect the connection if he fails to deposit the amount sought. It amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith relief sought.

9                                                Complainant has relied upon document Ex C-2 copy of demand notice dated 12.05.2017 vide which OPs raised the demand of Rs.12,087/-. Document Ex C-3 is the copy of format which clearly states the fact that complainant was granted tubewell connection under Chairman Quota and he deposited security amount on 2.11.2012. On the contrary, OPs have not brought before the Forum any plausible reason for charging this amount.

10                               From the careful perusal and after giving thoughtful consideration, it is made out that forcing complainant to deposit the amount as per new demand notice is illegal and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As per Electricity Supply Instructions Manual Instruction No.93.2 Limitation: “ Under Section 56 (2) of the Act no sum due from any consumer 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. PSPCL shall not cut-off supply in such cases, if the amount is debited after two years from the date when it became first due. In the instant case, the complainant deposited demand notice charges and completed all the formalities for the issuance of tubewell connection on 2.11.2012 and connection was issued in the year  2012. Now vide notice dated 12.05.2017, the opposite parties are claiming the amount in dispute alleging that at that time establishment charges of 16% could not be included inadvertently, which are now detected by Audit Party and they issued the notice to the complainant for recovery of this amount. As per their own Regulation of the opposite parties no sum due 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. In present case, the amount in dispute first time become due on the date when connection was issued to him on 2.11.2012 when the complainant deposited the demand notice charges, service charges of the tubewell regarding which now they issued notice for recovery of deficient service charges. As per their own Regulation of PSPCL, it should be recovered within two years i.e. till 1.11.2014. But the opposite parties demanded this amount vide notice dated 12.05.2017 i.e. after more than five years. Even under the Limitation Act, the general limitation for recovery of any amount is three years and demand of amount in dispute is also not covered under this period. So we are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties are not entitled to claim this amount from the complainant as barred by the period of limitation.

11                                  In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and OPs are directed to withdraw the demand for Rs.12,087/-raised by them vide notice dated 12.05.2017 and are further directed to take care in dealing with such cases in future. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 2.01.2019         

 

                          Member                                    President     

(Param Pal Kaur)            (Ajit Aggarwal)