Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/112

Randhir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

03 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                 Complaint No :      112

                                                 Date of Institution : 25.08.2015

Date of Decision :    3.02.2016

 

Randhir Singh aged 47 years, s/o Gurmail Singh r/o Village Kingra, Tehsil & District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2.  Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sadiq.                                   

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh M S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

 (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 of Rs 51,789/- charged as sundry charges and to pay Rs30,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant and Rs5,000/-as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having electric connection bearing a/c no. BW-38/0444 in his premises and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received. It is contended that complainant received a bill dt 19.08.2015 for Rs 56,390/-, in which amount of Rs 51,789/- is charged as sundry charges without giving any detail. It is further contended that previously, complainant received notice dt 6.04.2015 from the advocate of OPs wherein amount of Rs 51,109/-pertaining to a/c no. BW-38/0452 was charged and said amount related to Ashok Kumar s/o Duna Ram and said connection was disconnected permanently due to non payment and this amount of Rs 51,109/- was demanded from complainant on the ground that complainant got released his electric connection bearing no. BW-38/0444 in the same premises where connection in the name of Ashok Kumar was running. In that notice, no reference of any instructions or detail of demand was given. Complainant duly replied the notice of OPs through advocate vide reply dt 28.04.2015 and clearly mentioned in the reply that he has no knowledge in whose name the connection bearing a/c no. BW-38/0452 was running and on which premises it was running. It is also denied that connection of complainant is running on the same premises where connection of Ashok  Kumar was running. However, after receiving the bill, complainant visited the office of OPs and made request to them to withdraw the said bill as it was not related to complainant. Complainant also made request for depositing the current bill, but OPs refused to do the same and threatened to disconnect his connection if he fails to deposit the amount given in bill, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused loss, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay Rs 30,000/-for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs5,000/-as litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                   Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 27.08.2015, 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 asserting that connection of complainant was checked on 29.05.2014 by Sh Vajinder Vanaik the then Assistant Executive Engineer, Sadiq alongwith officials of Ops and during checking it was found that three meters  bearing a/c no. BW-38/0444, BW-38/0403 and BW-38/0452 meant for BPL category were installed in the same house. These three connections were running in the same house having common gate and single kitchen. It is pertinent to mention that BPL connection is meant for only one/two lamps, but the load of a/c no BW-38/444 was 0.200 and a/c no. BW-38/0403 was 0.160 KW. As per rules and regulations of PSPCL, one connection can be obtained for single house having one premises and one kitchen, whereas during checking it was found that three BPL connections were running in the same house. Ld counsel for OPs brought before the Forum that Jagroop Singh, brother of complainant is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Village Kingra and on his instructions, BPL connections were released by the out sourcing contractor of APDRP and from the checking report, it is clear that complainant and his brother misused the office of Sarpanch and got released the three BPL connections in their own house to get concession of electricity, which is meant purely for the people who are living below the line of poverty. On the basis of checking report, memo no. 1614 dt 9.07.2014 was issued to Jagdeep Singh assessing the amount of Rs 50,969/- and calculation and full detail was fully explained in said notice, but to avoid the wrath and dilute the misuse the office of Sarpanch Randhir Singh filed the present complaint. It is further averred that checking report was prepared at the spot in his presence and after reading and understanding the contents of checking report, complainant signed the same in token of its correctness. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering 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 affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2  to 5 and closed the same.

6                                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh AEE Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Vajinder Vanaik as Ex OP-8, affidavit of Shivtar Singh as Ex OP-9 and affidavit of Jagdish Lamba as Ex OP-10 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-7 and closed the evidence.

7                                        Ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant has a domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. BW-38/0444 in his house released by OPs. He is regularly paying all the bills and nothing is due towards him. In the month of August, 2015, he received a bill for Rs 56,390/- and in this bill Rs 51,789/- was charged as sundry charges without giving any detail. The demand of this amount as sundry charges is illegal and against the instructions of PSPCL. Earlier, complainant received a notice on behalf of OP-2 through their counsel and in that notice they demanded Rs 51,109/-of account no.BW-38/0452 in the name of Ashok Kumar son of Duna Ram which was disconnected due to non payment. They demanded this amount from complainant on the pretext that complainant got released his electric connection in the same premises where electric connection bearing no. BW-38/0452 was running. In that notice, no detail of the amount was given. The complainant duly replied to this notice through their counsel and he clearly mentioned that he has no knowledge regarding that connection and this connection is not running in the premises where the connection of complainant is installed. He has no concern with the connection bearing no. BW-38/0452 and he is not liable to pay the amount of that connection. Copy of the bill dt 19.08.2015 is Ex C-2, copy of notice issued by OPs is Ex C-3 and reply to notice is Ex C-4. On receipt of bill, the complainant approached OP-2 and requested them that amount charged as sundry charges be withdrawn as it does not relate to the account of complainant and he requested them to get deposited the current charge, but they refused to withdraw the sundry charges and threatened to disconnect the connection of complainant in case of non deposit of that amount. The OPs are not entitled to receive this amount from complainant. They have illegally demanded this amount from complainant. All these acts of Ops amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and due to this complainant has suffered great mental tension and harassment. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to withdraw the demand of amount in dispute and also to pay Rs 30,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.5,000/-as litigation expenses besides main relief.

8                                Ld Counsel for OPs argued that there is no  deficiency in service on the part of OPs. They issued correct bill to complainant and in this bill they charged Rs 51,109/- as sundry charges.The real facts of the case are that the connection of complainant was checked  on 29.05.2014 by Sh Vajinder Vinayak, the then Assistant Executive Engineer, Sadiq alongwith other officials of OPs and at the time of checking, it was found that three meters bearing no. BW-38/0444, BW-38/0403 and BW-38/0452 were installed in the same house which had one common main gate and single kitchen. The BPL connections are meant for only one or two lamps whereas on checking the load of account no BW-38/0444 was found to be 0.200KW and load of connection no. BW-38/0403 was found to be of 0.160KW in their meters. As per rules and regulations of PSPCL, only one connection can be obtained in a house having one premises and one kitchen, and other connection cannot be issued in the same premises but during checking, it was found that three connections were running in the same premises which were of BPL category. These connections were issued as per directions of PSPCL through Sr Executive Engineer by contractor of APDRP Bathinda and these connections were released at the instance of concerned Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The brother of complainant namely Jagdeep Singh is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat village Kingra on whose instructions, these connections were released by out sourcing contractor to complainant. His brother misused the power of Sarpanch and got released the connections in their names to get concession of power supply. At the time of checking, Jagdeep Singh was present on the spot and he signed the checking report as token of its correctness. On the basis of checking report, the notice was issued to Jagdeep Singh demanding the amount of Rs 50,969/- and full detail was explained in that notice. Only to avoid the recovery and to save the skin of Jagdeep Singh, who mis-used the office of Sarpanch, complainant has filed the present complaint and it is a shear misuse of process of law. The copy of checking report is Ex OP-6 and notice issued to Jagdeep Singh is Ex OP-7. The complainant got installed the said electric connection by misrepresentation and playing fraud in the premises where already electric connection bearing no. BW-38/452 was running in the name of Ashok Kumar and amount in question is charged as per rules of PSPCL and full detail of amount is given in the notice dt 9.07.2014. OPs have charged this amount legally and as per rules and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and complainant has not suffered any mental tension or harassment due to it. The complainant has filed this present false and frivolous complaint only to defraud the OPs. The present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

9                             The case of the complainant is that he has an electric connection running in his premises. He is regularly paying the bills to OPs regarding it. In the bill of August, 2015, OPs charged Rs 51789/-as sundry charges without giving any detail and earlier he received notice from OPs in which they charged this amount from him on account of electric connection bearing no. BW-38/452 issued in the name of Ashok Kumar and this connection was disconnected due to non payment of electricity charges. He pleaded that he has no concern with the said electric connection and this connection was not running in the premises where his electric connection is running and he is not liable to pay this amount. The OPs argued that the connection of the complainant and connection in the name of Ashok Kumar were released under BPL category. Their officials checked this connection on29.05.2014 and found that three electric connection in the name of complainant and in the name of Ashok Kumar and one connection bearing no. BW-38/0403 was running in the same premises whereas as per rules of the PSPCL only one connection can be issued in one premises and no other connection can be issued in the same premises and in the checking it was found that three connections were running in the same premises which is a violation of the rules of PSPCL. On the basis of checking report, the PSPCL issued a notice to Jagdeep Singh in whose name the connection bearing no. BW-38/0403 was running and in that notice, full detail of the amount was given as the connection no. BW-38/452 was running in the same premises where the connection of complainant is installed. So, they legally and as per rules of PSPCL demanded this amount from complainant as sundry charges and the Board is entitled for the recovery of this amount. The complainant argued that he has no concern with the connection of Ashok Kumar and it is not  running in the same premises. Moreover, the connection of complainant bearing no. BW-38/0444 is released earlier than the connection released in the name of Ashok Kumar bearing a/c no. BW-38/452. It is also clear from the Connection Release List, which is produced by OPs themselves as Ex OP-3 in which the connection of complainant is released at Sr No. 36 and connection no. BW-38/452 on Sr No. 52. Then, how, complainant got his electric connection in the same premises where the electric connection  bearing no. BW-38/452 was earlier running when that connection was released after connection of complainant. He has put reliance on the citation 2004 (1) CLT page 622 titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Garjit Kaur, wherein our Hon’ble State Commission decided that Electricity Bill – Amount outstanding against one connection added to the bill of another connection related to the complainant -  respondent – No law shown which permitted the amount outstanding against one connection that could be added in the bill of another connection if the demand related to the same consumer – Order of the District Forum allowing the complaint upheld. He further put reliance on the case decided by our Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No. 1066 of 2007 decided on 30.08.2013 titled as Kuldeep Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board wherein our Hon’ble State Commission observed that even if the electricity dues are payable by the father of the appellant, then the same should be recovered from the property of the father of the appellant. The respondents cannot recover any dues from the appellant. It is settled proposition of law that any amount outstanding against one electric connection cannot be added in the bill of another connection. The moral as well as pious obligation grounds are not to be considered above the law, rules and regulations. In the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board supra there is also Electricity Board demanded the amount of electricity connection which was earlier running in the same premises disconnected in the name of father of complainant which was disconnected for non payment of bill. Our Hon’ble State Commission held that the Board cannot claim this amount from the complainant. He argued that Ops cannot demand this amount from the complainant.

10                            From the above discussion and arguments advanced by the parties and the case law produced by the complainant, we are fully convinced with the complainant and complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. The Ops cannot claim amount of connection bearing no. BW-38/452 from complainant.  OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs 52,789/- which is demanded by them as sundry charges from the complainant on account of connection bearing no. BW-38/452. The OPs are further directed to adjust the amount deposited by complainant vide order of this Forum dt 27.08.2014 with OPs in his subsequent bills. Compliance of this order be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 3.02.2016

                   PMember                 Member               President                     (Parampal Kaur)                 (P Singla)           (Ajit Aggarwal)