Punjab

Sangrur

CC/566/2015

Subash Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.goyal

02 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                         

                                                Complaint No.  566

                                                Instituted on:    06.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       02.05.2016

 

Subash Chand aged 72 years son of Miri Ram son of Kaka Ram resident of Opposite B.D.O. Office, Patiala Road, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.     The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Patiala through its C.M.D.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, P.S.P.C.L. City
Sub Division, Sunam, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri R.K.Goyal, Advocate.

For Opposite parties         :       Shri G.S.Sharma, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Subash Chand complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant had obtained a NRS connection bearing account number S-S52PR141499K with 1 KW load from the OPs under the valid agreement and as such the OPs installed the meter outside the office of the complainant and the bills were issued from time to time which were paid by the complainant.  The grievance of the complainant is that he received a wrong bill dated 25.6.2015 for Rs.31,660/- from the OPs only for 18 units for the period from 22.4.2015 to 25.6.2015 and after receipt of the same, the complainant approached OP number 2 and the officials of the OP number 2 told that the demand of Rs.30,598/- pertains to the previous year and when it was asked that there is no bill pending against him, then it was told that there was a petrol pump at village Lehal Khurd in the name and style of Meeri Ram Gian Chand owned by the complainant and the arrears are on that account. As such, the complainant requested the OP number 2 that there is no electricity bill due at that petrol pump and to correct the impugned bill, but all in vain.  It is further stated that the said petrol pump was closed in the year 2007 and there was no electricity dues against the said petrol pump and even the security of that petrol pump is pending against the OPs.   As such, it is averred that the OPs have demanded the disputed demand illegally from the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw/quash the said illegal bill for Rs.31,660/- and to issue fresh bill as per actual consumption charges and further to pay compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by getting a NRS connection of 1 KW load and that the complainant is paying the bills. It has been denied that the complainant approached the Ops after receipt of the bill dated 25.6.2015.  It has been stated that the charges of Rs.30,598/- are of previous year and it was specifically told to the complainant that there was a petrol pump at village Lehal Khurd in the name and style of Meeri Ram Gian Chand owned by the complainant and the amount of consumption of electricity is due on that account. It has been further stated that the demand has rightly been raised against the complainant. It has been denied that the petrol pump in question was closed in the year 2007.   However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 copies of bills, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 copies of receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of letter dated 1.4.2014, Ex.OP-3 copy of ledger and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

       

5.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by getting installed NRS electricity connection bearing account number S-S52PR141499K. It is also not in dispute that an amount of Rs.30,598/- has been demanded from the complainant as balance of previous financial year and further  the said amount of Rs.30,598/- was added in the bill dated 25.06.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further vehemently contended that after receipt of the bill dated 25.6.2015 the complainant approached the OP number 2 to enquire about the inclusion of the amount of Rs.30,598/-, who told that the amount relates to the previous dues of petrol pump  at village Lehal Khurd in the name and style of Meeri Ram Gian Chand.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the petrol pump in question was closed in the year 2007 and there was nothing due against the petrol pump at that time.  The Ops have produced nothing and complete details on the record that the amount of Rs.30,598/- so demanded from the complainant relates to the petrol pump in question.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not produce on record the details of the amount and the period for which that amount has been so demanded. It seems that the OPs have intentionally and wilfully withheld this material information from the complainant as well as from this Forum, more so when the OP is a Government Department, who is bound to have complete record of the demand so raised and further to provide the full details to the complainant.  But, in the present case, the OPs have miserably failed to provide the details to the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that the OPs before including such a demand of Rs.30,598/- in the bill dated 25.6.2015, no separate notice has been issued to the complainant providing complete details of the demand.  If it is assumed that the petrol pump in question was closed in the year 2007, then the Ops could recover the due amount from the complainant within the period of two years as provided in Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section 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 arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the license shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops have miserably failed to prove on record that the amount of Rs.30,598/- is due against the complainant and the Ops have illegally inserted an amount of Rs.30,598/- in the current consumption bill dated 25.6.2015 of the complainant and by inserting/raising such a demand against the complainant the OPs are deficient in rendering service towards the complainant/ consumer.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has also cited Madhu Garg and another versus North Delhi Power Ltd. and another 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 260, wherein it has been held that in default of the payment of bills, liability is of the actual owner at the time of default not the subsequent owner. It is only when a successor or heir of the original owner inherits the interest and liabilities together from the predecessor, he steps into the shoes of the original owner and can be asked to pay or in case the subsequent owner is found to be conniving mala fide with the previous owner to avoid the payment, he can be asked to pay and proceeded against. But, in the present case, there are no such circumstances and the law cited by the learned counsel for the Ops is not at all applicable.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion and legal position explained above, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.30,598/- raised through bill dated 25.06.2015, Ex.C-3. We further order the Ops to refund to the complainant the amount, if any, deposited by the complainant against the above said demand. Ops are also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

7.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 2, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                              Member

                                                       

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member