DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No.CC/15/135 of 2.7.2015

                                      Decided on:        5.1.2016

Ritu Rani aged about 30 years wife of Shri Ravinder Singh daughter-in-law of Sukhjit Kaur resident of New Friends Enclave, Near Gurudwara Angitha Sahib, Opposite Urban Estate, Patiala.   

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.      Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2.      Assistant Engineer/DA Sub Division, PSPCL, Bahadurgarh.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

Present:

For the complainant:      Sh.Mayank Malhotra, Advocate

For Ops:                           Sh.P.S.Walia,Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is alleged by the complainant that the electricity connection bearing a/c No.P41UF320555W exists in the name of Smt.Sukhjit Kaur, mother-in-law of the complainant, who had been residing with her family in the premises where the aforesaid electricity connection is installed.
2. Due to some family dispute between her said mother-in-law and her son i.e. the husband of the complainant Smt.Sukhjit Kaur shifted to house No.831 Bajwa Colony, near DCW colony, Patiala and she provided the house on rent to her son and her daughter-in-law(complainant) in December,2014. As per the oral agreement, the husband of the complainant deposited the advance rent in a sum of Rs.30,000/- @ Rs.1000/- per month in the account of his father namely Sh.Sohan Singh on 17.12.2014.
3. Due to the interference by the mother-in-law of the complainant, her husband also shifted to the house of his mother and now the complainant is residing in the house alongwith her two children.
4. It is further averred that the complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection aforesaid as she is making a use of the same being in the lawful possession of the house and she is making the payment of the electricity consumed since December,2014.
5. It is further averred that the bill dated 27.5.2015 was issued by Ops in which a sum of Rs.13420/- was shown as arrears although the complainant had deposited Rs.5000/- on 20.5.2015 and Rs.6000/- on 25.5.2015. The complainant approached Op no.2 for getting the bill corrected and the official after making verification from the accounts corrected the bill manually and raised the bill for Rs.2400/- towards arrears instead of Rs.13,420/-in the bill dated 27.5.2015. She has paid the said amount of Rs.2400/- vide receipt dated 9.6.2015 and nothing was due against the complainant.
6. It is further averred that the Ops without any reason disconnected the supply to the aforesaid electricity connection on 29.6.2015 without any notice or any ground having been conveyed to the complainant before the disconnection of the supply and the said act of the Ops is said to be illegal, null and void , malafide, against the principles of natural justice as also the rules of the PSPCL.
7. It is alleged by the complainant that she is entitled to the restoration of the electricity connection  and is further entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.30,000/- because of the deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to restore the supply of the electricity connection and to grant any other relief to which she is found entitled.
8. On notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written version. It is denied by the Ops that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops. The electricity connection bearing a/c No.P41UF420555W was lying installed in the name of Smt.Sukhkit Kaur w/of Sohan Singh. It is denied that any bill was issued in the name of the complainant, the connection being in the name of Smt.Sukhjit Kaur and the receipts have also been issued in her name. It is denied, for want of knowledge, as to who had been depositing the bills of the electricity issued from time to time. It is denied that the Ops have disconnected the supply to the electricity connection without any cause. The disconnection was done on the basis of the application moved by the consumer as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL. It is denied that the Ops have violated any rules and regulations and there was any deficiency of service on their part. The complainant was clearly told that the disconnection had been made at the instance of the complainant Smt.Sukhjit Kaur. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA her sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C9 and her counsel closed the evidence.
10. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Er.J.K.Jindal, AEE. Bahadurgarh Sub-Division of the PSPCL and closed their evidence.
11. The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
12. The only plea taken up by the Ops is that they disconnected the supply to the electricity connection No.P41UF320555W at the instance of their consumer namely Smt.Sukhjit Kaur but the Ops have not been able to rebut the plea taken up by the complainant that she is residing in the house where the electricity connection in question is lying installed being the daughter-in-law of said Smt.Sukhjit Kaur, in which she and her husband were  inducted as tenants by said Smt.Sukhjit Kaur and that her husband deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- by way of rent @ Rs.1000/-  per month in the account of his father on 17.12.2014.
13. Thus, the Ops have not been able to rebut the plea taken up by the complainant that firstly said Smt.Sukhjit Kaur used to reside in the house where the electricity connection in question is lying installed with her son as also the complainant and her children but who lateron shifted the another house and lateron because of the interference by said Smt.Sukhjit Kaur her son had also shifted. Thus, the complainant as alleged, is the beneficiary of the electricity connection in question and the same has been got disconnected by said Smt.Sukhjit Kaur.
14. The Ops have not been able to rebut the allegations made in the complaint that the complainant has been depositing the charges of the electricity bills received by her and rather the Ops have expressed the ignorance as to who has been depositing the amount of the electricity bills issued from time to time.
15. There might have been differences between the complainant  on the one hand and Smt.Sukhjit Kaur her-mother-in law on the other hand or may be between the complainant as also her husband and on account of said differences Smt.Sukhjit Kaur and her son started residing separately in a different house but that does not mean that the member of the family namely the complainant being the daughter-in-law of Smt.Sukhjit Kaur cannot make a use of the facility of the electricity. Every member of the family is to be treated as beneficiary of the electricity connection. The right of Smt.Sukhjit Kaur , if any, under the law is to recover the possession of the house in due course of law but she could not get the supply of the electricity connection installed n the house in question disconnected. We had, therefore, at the time of entertaining the complaint granted the interim relief to the complainant having given the direction to the Ops to restore the supply to the electricity connection and it was stated by the learned counsel for the Ops that the charges of the electricity bills issued regarding the connection in question are being deposited.
16. It was submitted by Sh.Mayank Malhotra, the counsel for the complainant that the act of the Ops in having disconnected the supply to the electricity connection in question amounted to an unfair trade practice because the Ops failed to serve any notice upon the complainant before disconnecting the supply to the connection .
17. On the other hand Sh.P.S.Walia, the learned counsel for the Ops submitted that the supply was disconnected at the instance of the consumer Smt.Sukhjit Kaur.
18. We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that disconnection of the supply to the electricity connection in question without giving any notice to the complainant, she being a member of the family amounted to an unfair trade practice. In any way, the electricity connection in question having been restored under the order of the Forum, we accept the complaint simply with a direction to the Ops  not to disconnect the supply of the electricity connection in future unless any default is made in the payment of the charges of the electricity by the complainant or on account of any violations of the Rules & Regulations of the PSPCL. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.2000/-.

Pronounced

Dated: 5.1.2016

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President