Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/70/2014

Rama bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCLtd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh IS Saou

29 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                             Consumer Complaint No.70 of 2014

                                                                   Date of institution:  26.05.2014                                                                           Date of decision  :   29.07.2015

Rama Bansal wife of late Sh. Sushil Kumar Bansal, R/o H.No.248, Sec-23-B, Dashmesh Colony, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., the Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman/Secretary.
2. Senior Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Xen.
3. Sub Division Office PSPCL, Mandi Gobindgarh(City), District Fatehgarh Sahib through its S.D.O.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                                 Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                          

Present :      Sh.I.S.Saou, Adv. Cl. for the complainant                                                  Sh. M.P.S.Batra, Adv. Cl. for the OPs.

 

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                   Complainant, Rama Bansal wife of late Sh. Sushil Kumar Bansal, R/o H.No.248, Sec-23-B, Dashmesh Colony, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                The husband of the complainant, namely; Sushil Kumar Bansal (now deceased) was the consumer of the opposite parties by consuming electricity through A/C No. K21LC492902P. The complainant is legal heir and beneficiary of the estate of her husband. It is further stated that the complainant and her husband had purchased the constructed house, vide Vasika No.522 dated 27.06.2013, and an electric meter was installed in the said house after fulfilling all the formalities as per the demand of the opposite parties. The electricity charges regarding the consumption of electricity were paid by her and her husband regularly and they were never become defaulter of the opposite parties. On 20.02.2014, during the life time of Sushil Kumar Bansal, the electric meter had stolen and a DDR No.39 dated 20.02.2014 was lodged in P.S.Mandi Gobindgarh. An application dated 24.02.2014 regarding the theft of such meter was also moved to opposite party No.3 and it was requested to restore the electric connection. But no action was taken by the opposite parties, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant many times approached to the office of opposite parties No.2 and 3 and made various requests to restore the electric connection but the OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of complainant. Thereafter the complainant also issued legal notice to the opposite parties to restore the connection but in vain. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to restore the electric connection and to pay Rs.90,000/-, as damages.

3.                 The complaint is contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint the opposite parties stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties as there is no agreement between the complainant and OPs as Consumer and Service Provider. It is further stated that as per record the amount of Rs.35,404/- is pending upon the complainant and surcharges are pending on the electric connection in question. Previously an electric connection bearing account No. LC 49/1741L was running in the name of Sat Parkash son of Lakhbir Singh in the same premises, where the electric connection in question bearing account No. LC49/2902 is running. The said Sat Parkash filed application before the SDO regarding change of burnt meter and deposited the amount of Rs.320/- on 20.05.2010. The electric meter was replaced vide MCO No.168/76627 dated 20.05.2010. The old meter was properly sealed and packed as per the rules and regulations of the PSPCL and the same was checked in ME Lab along with other meters vide store challan No.590 dated 14.06.2010 and it was found that both the ME seals of the meter were tempered. The case of unauthorized use of electricity was declared and Rs.35404/- were added as Sundry charges. The said amount was not deposited by Sat Parkash and the connection was disconnected. Thereafter, Sushil Kumar purchaser of the same premises installed the new connection without paying the old defaulting amount. As per procedure of the PSPCL, the defaulting amount of Electric Connection No. LC49/1741 was shifted to LC 49/2902 and the consumer is bound to pay the same. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C- 10, copy of sale deed Ex. C-1, copy of DDR Ex. C-2, copy of letter dated 24.02.2014 Ex. C-3, copy of legal notice Ex. C-4, postal receipts Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-5, copy of receipt No. 177 Ex. C-8, copy of receipt dated 24.02.2014 Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered affidavit of Er. Balbir Singh Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Baljit Singh Ex. OP-2, copy of letter/application and deposit slip Ex. OP-3, certified copy of store challan No. 590 dt. 14.06.2010 Ex. OP-4, copy of sundry register page No.45/5 Ex. OP-5, copy of sundry register page No.34/R 105 Ex. OP-6, copy of PDCO of connection No. LC 49/1741 Ex. OP-7, copy of PDCO of connection No. LC 49/2902 and closed the evidence.

5.                The ld counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant and her deceased husband had purchased the constructed house, vide Vasika No.522 dated 27.06.2013, from one Bimla Devi as it is evident from the copy of registry i.e Ex-C1 and it was also stated in the registry by the previous owner that no dues are pending against the said premises. The ld. counsel also submitted that the complainant was not aware, if any connection was previously running in the name of Mr.Sat Parkash son of Lakhbir Singh in the same premises. The ld. counsel argued that how can the complainant be charged for the wrong of the previous owner and if the bill had not been paid by the previous owner or Sat Parkash then, it may be recovered from him as per the recovery procedure provided under the Electricity Act. The ld.counsel further argued that the OPs had disconnected the connection of the complainant without following the mandatory Rules and without disclosing imposed the dues of the previous owner or her tenant on the complainant and made her go through unnecessary mental as well as physical harassment. The ld. counsel made a submission that it has been admitted by the OPs that the dues of the previous owner were pending in the same premises, therefore the OPs disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant. He pointed that the act and conduct of the OPs clearly establishes deficiency of services on the part of the OPs.

6.                On the other hand ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party has submitted that in case of sale of premises the present consumer is liable to pay electricity dues of previous consumer. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that as per the record an amount of Rs.35404/- is pending towards Sat Parkash, who had been residing in the same premises, thus the complainant is liable to pay the same, as no intimation was given to the OPs when the said premises was purchased by the complainant and her deceased husband.

7.                After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and evidence produced by them and oral as well as written submissions, we find that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency of service and are liable for unfair trade practice by issuing bills for recovery of sum of Rs.35404/- to the complainant instead of the previous owner. We direct the Opposite Parties not to recover the disputed amount from the complainant. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Haryana State Electricity Board V/s. M/S. Hanuman Rice Mills Dhanauri & Ors,(Civil Appeal No. 6817 of 2010) whereby it has been held “that  a purchaser of a premises, cannot be foisted with the electricity dues of any previous occupant, merely because he happens to be the current owner of the premises”.

8.                Accordingly in view of our aforementioned discussion, the plea of the complainant is accepted and the opposite parties are directed not to compel the complainant to pay the amount due towards the previous occupant. The Ops are further directed to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. However the opposite party is at liberty to recover the same from the previous owner/occupant as per their Rules and Regulations. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

9.                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 24.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.       

 Pronounced                                                                                  Dated:29.07.2015                                                    (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                                             President

 

                                                                             (Veena Chahal)                                                                                          Member