DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 1285/2015
Date of Institution : 17.11.2015
Date of Decision : 23.11.2016
Veena Rani wife of Manjit Chand son of Prem Chand resident of Dhanaula Kalan Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala through its Secretary/Chairman/Managing Director.
2. The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., City Division, Barnala through its XEN.
3. The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Dhanaula-I through its SDO.
4. Karamjit Singh JE Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division Dhanaula-I.
5. Yash Paul Line Man Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division Dhanaula-I.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Vaneet Kumar counsel for complainant.
Smt. Anu Sharma counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Veena Rani wife of Manjit Chand has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short as Act) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others.
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one semi constructed house from Balwant Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh resident of Dhanaula Kalan vide registered sale deed No. 1663 dated 15.2.2010. To complete the construction of the said house, the complainant applied for a domestic electric connection with the opposite party and deposited security to the tune of Rs. 2,695/- with the opposite party No. 3 vide receipt No. 101/48182 dated 14.7.2015. It is further averred that the opposite party No. 1 released DS Connection after verification of all the facts and installed a meter on 2.9.2015 in the above said house in the name of the complainant.
3. It is alleged that, however on 9.9.2015 the officials of the opposite party visited the house of the complainant and removed the above said electric meter without any legal right or notice. On asking from the opposite parties No. 4 and 5, why the meter was removed they told that an amount of Rs. 16,000/- is outstanding against her and further asked to pay the said amount if she intends to use the electric connection. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the SDO i.e. opposite party No. 3 regarding verification of the due amount but opposite party No. 3 found that there was no outstanding amount against the complainant till date and no notice was issued by their office. Then, the complainant requested the opposite party No. 3 to restore the electric connection but the opposite party did not restore the said connection. The complainant further alleged that a dispute in regard to the contempt of court between the family of the complainant and opposite parties No. 4 and 5 is pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Barnala and opposite parties No. 4 and 5 were pressurizing the complainant and her family to withdraw the said case. It is further alleged that prior to this, opposite parties No. 4 and 5 misused their official powers and they forged an inspection report of theft of energy against the family member of the complainant namely Narinder Kumar and issued a notice under Section 126 of the Electricity Act in June 2013 and imposed a fine of Rs. 16,122/-. The complainant further alleged that then they approached the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and requested to verify the case. The investigation was made by the officers and found that the above said inspection report was forged one and the said amount was withdrawn by the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant made repeated requests to the opposite party to restore the above said electric connection but in vain. Hence, it is alleged that the action of the opposite parties falls under the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and due to this the complainant has suffered physical and mental agony. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties be directed to release the above said electric connection without any delay.
2) To pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment.
3) To pay Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses and counsel fee.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed a joint written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, bad for mis joinder of necessary parties, not coming to this Forum with clean hands, complainant is not a consumer and complaint is false and frivolous.
5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant was carrying on construction work at her plot and was not having any electric connection and was using loop connection. During the routine inspection/ checking it was found that theft of power had been taking place as the premises was under construction and on inquiry it was found that one Narinder Kumar father of the complainant claimed to be the owner of the plot. As such a notice under Section 135 read with Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was issued to him and fine of Rs. 16,122/- was imposed upon him. However, after the representation made by Sh. Narinder Kumar the said notice was withdrawn against him as he was not the owner of the plot/premises and fine cannot be imposed on a third party. It is further submitted that later on in the year 2015 complainant applied for domestic connection for her premises and also deposited Rs. 2,695/- as security but before the meter could be installed it was realized by the opposite parties that an amount of Rs. 16,122/- is still outstanding against the said premises and as such the meter was not installed and no connection was given. It is further submitted that Rs. 16,122/- is outstanding against the complainant and the complainant can become entitle to electric connection in the eventuality of her clearing the outstanding amount. They further submitted that the inspection report was not a forged one. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In order to prove her case, complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, photocopy of sale deed dated 15.2.2010 Ex.C-2, copy of receipt of Rs. 2,695/- Ex.C-3, copy of notice under Section 135 Ex.C-4, copy of notice dated 23.10.2015 Ex.C-5, copy of letter No. 1172 dated 28.6.2013 Ex.C-6, copy of self declaration of Sh. Narinder Kumar Ex.C-7, copy of application Ex.C-8, copy of order dated 25.4.2011 Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Amandeep Singh AEE PSPCL Ex.OP-1, copy of notice under Section 135 of Electricity Act 2003 Ex.OP-2, affidavit of Karamjit Singh JE Ex.OP-3, copy of inspection report Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
9. The first point is to be determined whether the present complaint is maintainable or not.
10. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that during the construction of the house, the officers of the opposite parties inspected the premises of the complainant and found that theft of power was taking place and therefore, a notice Ex.OP-4 was issued for the recovery of Rs. 16,122/-. The learned counsel further contended that till the said amount is not paid by the complainant, the opposite party is not competent to issue the electric connection.
11. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the said inspection report Ex.OP-4 has been prepared by sitting in their office by the opposite parties to harass the complainant and later on on giving representation by Narinder Kumar the said notice was withdrawn meaning thereby that there was no theft of energy and consequently there was nothing to recover from the complainant. It is relevant to refer the affidavit Ex.C-1 of the complainant wherein she has reiterated her case as mentioned in the complaint. She has specifically stated that since the contempt of court proceedings is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Barnala against the opposite parties No. 4 and 5 and to pressurize her and her family for withdrawing the said case, the officials of the opposite parties i.e. opposite parties No. 4 and 5 had framed a forged inspection report. Apart from this it is also relevant to refer the report Ex.OP-4. Perusal of the same shows that it was issued in the name of Narinder Kumar and it is of dated 27.6.2013 and shows the recovery of Rs. 16,122/- against the said Narinder Kumar. It is also the case of the opposite party that on representation by the said Narinder Kumar the said notice was withdrawn against him as fine cannot be imposed on a third party. The opposite party have not placed on record any notice to indicate the name of the complainant namely Veena Rani who is the owner of the premises. Even, till today no such notice has been issued to the said Veena Rani for effecting recovery of the said amount. Moreover, the said Veena Rani deposited the security amount of Rs. 2,695/- on 14.7.2015 vide receipt Ex.C-3 for obtaining domestic connection. This deposit of security is also not denied by the opposite parties.
12. Even the notice Ex.OP-4 does not show the signatures of the complainant or the said Narinder Kumar. The opposite parties have also failed to place on record any affidavit of the visiting officer who visited the premises and make the inspection. The opposite party is also silent regarding registration of the FIR, if they found theft of energy on the spot.
13. In 2011 (2) Civil Court Cases in case Abhisar Developers Versus Torrent Power Ltd. it was a case of transfer of premises and arrears of electricity of previous owner/occupier. It was held that electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the property and transferee or premises or a subsequent occupant cannot be made liable for the dues of his predecessor in title or possession. Similar view is also held in Jaisukal N. Bhutta and others Versus MSEB and Others in 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) Page-199 Bombay High Court (DB) wherein it was observed that purchaser cannot be made liable to pay arrears and it was further observed that purchaser is entitled for new electricity connection. In Sri Chandu Khamaru Versus Smt. Nayan Malik and others 2011 (4) Civil Court Cases-006 (SC) is para No. 10 and 11 it was observed that owner or occupier of a premises has a statutory right for an electric connection.
14. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is accepted to the extent that the opposite parties are directed to release the electric connection to the complainant on deposit of legal dues, if any for installation of the meter within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. However, the opposite parties are at liberty to recover the disputed amount from the complainant or any other person after issuance of the notice explaining the dues, if any, as per law/rules. No order as to costs or compensation. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
23rd Day of November 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
