Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/42

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Varinder Dhiman, Adv

27 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  42 of 03.08.2017

                                 Date of decision                    :      27.03.2018

 

Satnam Singh, aged about 37 years, son of Sh. Darshan Singh, Proprietor of M/s Strong Arms Hydraulic India, Opposite Ram Leela Ground, Railway Road, Morinda, District Rupnagar  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala

2. Chief Engnieer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Electricity Sub Division Morinda, District Rupnagar

3.  Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Morinda, District Rupnagar

4.  Daljit Kaur wife of Late Sh. Darshan Singh, resident of House No.321, Ward No.8. Railway Road, Morinda, District Rupnagar.   

                                                                         ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.Varinder Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

 Sh. K.S. Longia, Adv. counsel for O.Ps. No.1 to 3

          Complaint against OP No.4 stands dismissed in limine

 

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the notice dated 12.7.2017; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation;  along with Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.         Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant has obtained the electric connection from the OP Nos.1 to 3, which bears account No.SP94/0529H. The OP Nos. 1 to 3 has issued the wrong and illegal notice No.623 dated 12.7.2017 to him, vide which the OPs. No.1 to 3 are demanding the amount of Rs.87,375/-of account No.CM52/3209A NRS. Earlier, the OP No.1 to 3 had issued the illegal notice regarding outstanding amount of the account No.CM52/3209A NRS to the O.P. No.4 i.e. Smt Daljeet Kaur and when the OP No.4 received the said notice then she filed a complaint before the consumer Forum against the OPs, and the said complaint was partly allowed by this Forum vide order dated 21.10.2016. The said notice dated 12.7.2017, issued by the OPs to him is totally wrong, illegal, unconstitutional and beyond the limitation period and the same is liable to be withdrawn. It is further stated that the matter involved in this complaint has already been decided on 21.10.2016 and the O.Ps. No.1 to 3 has not file any appeal against the order dated 21.10.2016 and the said notice has got finality. Now the Ops has again demanding the same amount on the same cause of action which is totally wrong and illegal. He is the consumer of the OPs and is paying the electricity charges regularly to the O.Ps. The O.Ps. are not entitled to claim any amount from him.  He approached and requested the O.Ps many times to desist from their illegal designs and to withdraw the said notice but of no use. Hence, this complaint.

3.    On notice, O.Ps. appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that complaint is not maintainable in the present form because complainant inherited the property which was owned by his father namely Darshan Singh son of Joginder Singh, where an electric connection bearing No.CM52/3209-A was released by the O.P. and there was a defaulting amount of regular consumption bill to the tune of Rs.87,375/-. The amount was not paid by the Darshan Singh nor his LR's, ultimately connection was disconnected. On merits, it is further stated that complainant is running very big industrial establishment under name and style of Popular Auto Mobiles and Popular Engineering works, where number of employees are working so being a commercial establishment run by the complainant, the complaint is barred under the law. The electric connection SP94/0529-H was released in the name of the complainant.  It is further stated that an electric connection bearing No.CM52/5209-A was released in the name of Darshan Singh son of Joginder Singh father of the complainant, who made a default in regular consumption bill to the tune of Rs.87,375/- and ultimate due to non payment of energy charged the said khata was permanently disconnected on 1.12.2014 and a notice No.133 dated 11.2.2015 was issued to the applicant and his mother namely Daljit Kaur. But none of the party honoured the notice nor made any compliance and failed to deposited the regular consumption bill. Ultimate, a complaint was filed by Daljit Kaur mother of complainant. The complaint was allowed. A connection bearing No.CM52/3209-A was released in the premises possessed by applicant and Darshan Singh, where both the father and son were running a joint business under the name and style of popular auto mobile and Popular Engineering works. The Khata No.CM52/3209 was commercial connection whereas Khata No.SP94/529 was SP connection was there. Both the connection were released in the same premises and were jointly utilized by father and son. After the death of Darshan Singh, the property owned by Darshan Singh inherited by complainant and legal heirs of Darshan Singh. So complainant is liable to make the payment of energy charges/debt liability of Darshan Singh.

4.         On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit f Er. Surinder Singh Bains, Executive Engineer, Operation Division Kharar, Ex.OP1/1, affidavit of Sh. Satnam Singh, Ex.OP1/11 along with documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/10 & Ex.OP1/12. 

5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.    Complainant counsel Sh. Varinder Kumar Dhiman, argued that demand of Rs.87,375/- vide notice dated 12.7.2017 issued by the O.Ps. No.1 to 3 illegal, wrong, unconstitutional and beyond the limitation period. Learned counsel then referred the pleadings, evidence adduced by both the parties then the order dated 21.10.2016 titled as Daljeet Kaur Vs PSPCL and prayed that demand is illegal and to allow the complaint.

7.    Sh. K.S. Longia, counsel for the O.Ps No.1 to 3 argued that the electric connection was in the name of Darshan Singh, father of the complainant and complainant inherited the property of his father. After the death of Darshan Singh, complainant used the connection and later on got transferred the property in his name. When complainant inherited the property and sale deed is in his favour, then the verdict of this Forum has already come in a complaint No.90 of 11.09.2015 titled as Daljit Kaur Vs PSPCL etc. decided on 21.10.2016, which was filed by Smt. Daljeet Kaur widow of Darshan Singh and mother of complainant. In the said order, the Forum has declared the recoverable amount of Rs.87,375/- by the O.Ps. from the LRs of Darshan Singh. In the said complaint, complainant was impleaded as already as OP No.4. When findings of Forum has come then now complainant Satnam Singh has no right to challenged the amount and lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

8.    Firstly coming to the maintainability and whether it is a consumer dispute. Territorial jurisdiction is undisputed as between the parties one complaint No. 90 of 11.09.2015 titled as Daljit Kaur Vs PSPCL decided on 21.10.2016 remain pending and that order of this forum has attained finality. In this complaint, Satnam Singh one of the LR of Darshan Singh has challenged the notice dated 12.07.2017 vide which O.Ps. demanded Rs.87,375/-, so it is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable. Coming to the real controversy, sufficient evidence as well as admitted case of both the parties is that Darshan Singh son of Joginder Singh was the owner of the property where on his request electric connection was released by the OPs and it remain in continuity. Said Darshan Singh died in the year 2009 and the property where the connection was released came into the possession of Satnam Singh, complainant. File reveals that OPs demanded Rs.87,375/- vide notice dated 11.2.2015 from the LRs of Darshan Singh i.e. Daljeet Kaur, widow. She preferred complaint No.90 of 11.9.2015 impleading PSPCL as well as his son Satnam Singh(complainant) and that was decided on 21.10.2016, copy of which is Ex.OP1/2. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as under:-

        "It may be stated that the outstanding amount, if any against the    electric connection bearing No.CM52/3209/ACNRS which was        installed in the name of Late Darshan Singh, may be recovered           as per provision of law".

9.     The above said order empowered the PSPCL to recover the amount as per law. Undisputedly, Darshan Singh was the connection holder and after his death the property inherited by his widow, sons and daughter. Though, complainant in evidence has tendered the affidavit and copy of notice then order of this Forum dated 21.10.2016 then in evidence OPs (PSPCL) placed on file demand notice Ex.OP1/5, Jamabandi Ex.OP1/A, where the connection installed. Mutation No.15685 dated 20.12.2011 proves that the property of Darshan Singh transferred in the name of Daljeet Kaur to the extent of 1/8 share, 1/32 share each, in the name of Amandeep Kaur, daughter, Satnam Singh and Jaspreet Singh sons then vide mutation No.17727 dated 10.3.2014 through Vasika No.2112 dated 07.03.2014, Daljeet Kaur widow, Amandeep Kaur daughter, Jaspreet Singh son, transferred their share in the property where the connection was installed in the name of Satnam Singh (complainant). Though, during the evidence, complainant not placed on file sale deed dated 7.3.2014, but during the course of arguments for the purpose of reading, it was shown by the complainant counsel, it means the property where connection was installed stand transferred in the name of complainant Satnam Singh and this point is undisputed. At the same time, counsel for the PSPCL referred the copy of Supply Code of 2014 effective from 1.1.2015 and its relevant portion is 30.15, which is reproduced as under:-

                             "In case of transfer of property by the sale/inheritance, the    purchase/heir shall be liable to pay all charges due with respect       to such property and found subsequently recoverable from the           consumer".

                              Besides this OPs placed on file Ex.OP1/4 i.e. affidavit of JE Ranjit Singh who proved that the Khata No.CM52/3209 is now in      possession of Satnam Singh (complainant) where he has running    business.

10.          Though, litigation is pending for the last about 5/6 years and LRS of Darshan Singh inherited his property but are shirking from the fulfillment of legal liability of the said Darshan Singh. Smt. Daljeet Kaur widow filed complaint but the Forum vide its order dated 21.10.2016 not held the demand illegal. Furthermore, in this complaint, complainant Satnam Singh not impleaded that the demand of Rs.87,375/- relating to Darshan Singh is either illegal or the consumption is at fault or wrong. Only taken the plea that the notice dated 12.7.2017 issued by the PSPCL to him is illegal. So the complaint is without merit. Complainant remain fail in proving deficiency on the part of OPs.

11.             In the light of above discussion, the complaint stand dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

12.      The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                    ANNOUNCED                                                       (KARNAL SINGH AHHI)

                    Dated .27.03.2018                                      PRESIDENT

 

                                                           (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                              MEMBER