Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/204

Kulwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pujab State Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Steven Soni Adv.

16 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:204 dated 01.05.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 16.02.2023.

 

Kulwant Singh Badisha S/o. Teja Singh, r/o.177/169, Village Dugri, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala through its Chief Engineer.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Model Town, Ludhiana through its Additional executive Engineer/SDO/XEN.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Diljot Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Manish Midha, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that  the complainant is the owner in possession of one residential plot measuring 305 sq. yards having 45’x61’ bounded as under:-

          North                   Street 45’

          South                   House of Navnit Kaur 45’

          East            Street 61’

          West           Vacant plot 61’

Having khasra No.303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312 khata No.548/671, 672 as per jamabandi for the year 2007-08 situated at village Dhandra I, Hadbast No.274, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Abadi Satjot Nagar which is his ancestral property, inherited by him from his father Teja Singh. The complainant has constructed the boundary walls and gate over the said plot and also installed an electricity meter No.9044312 in his name and had been regularly paying the electricity bills. The complainant has also installed a submersible pump since 1998. The complainant stated that at the instance of one Neelam Saggu, the opposite parties have mischievously got transferred the said electric meter in the name of Rohit Saggu in place of complainant without any basis and without any notice to the complainant whereas the complainant is owner in possession of the plot due to which the complainant has suffered great mental tension, harassment and agony which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 19.11.2018 upon the opposite parties to transfer the electricity connection in his name from Rohit Saggu. The complainant even moved a representation dated 21.04.2019 to the Incharge, Police Station, Sadar, Ludhiana n this regard.  Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has sought directions to opposite parties to correct the name of electricity meter bearing N9.9044312 from Rohit Saggu to Kulwant Saggu and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The opposite parties alleged that the electric meter No.9044312 has rightly been transferred in the name of Rohit Saggu as Rohit Saggu produced the transfer deed duly executed by Neelam Saggu wife of Sh. Surinder Kumar Saggu and other documents regarding his ownership. Moroever, Smt. Neelam Saggu wife of Sh. Surinder Kuamr Saggu son of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Saggu, and Sh. Rohit Saggu son of Sh. Surinder Kumar Saggu, R/o. House No.39, Kanchan Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana are the necessary parties to the present complaint.

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite parties alleged that they have rightly transferred the electric connection in the name of Rohit Saggu after verifying all the documents produced by Rohit Saggu regarding his ownership and the complainant has failed to take any action at the time when the electric connection was transferred in the name of Rohit Saggu.  The opposite parties have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 2007-2008, Ex. C2 , Ex. C4, Ex. C5, C6, Ex. C9, Ex. C10 are the copies of bills, Ex. C3 and Ex. C7 are the receipts, Ex. C8 is the copy of invoice No.726 dated 09.11.1998, Ex. C11 is the legal notice dated 19.11.2018, Ex. C12 and Ex. C13 are the copies of postal receipts, Ex. C14 is the copy of complaint receipt given to Police, Ex. C11/A is the copy of compliant dated 21.04.2019 moved to the police and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Er. M.P. Singh, Additional SE, Model Town Division (Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana  along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of  application and agreement form in the name of Rohit Saggu, Ex. R2 is the copy of transfer deed by Neelam Saggu in the name of Rohit Saggu and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.     

6.                Perusal of the documents of the complainant shows that he is the owner of the plot measuring 305 sq. yards falling in khasra No.303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312 khata No.548/671, 672 situated at village Dhandra I, Tehsil and district Ludhiana which he inherited from his father. A submersible pump has been installed therein since 1998 and to which the electricity was being supplied through the electricity meter connection No.9044312. He had been paying the electricity charges till 29.10.2018 as per bill Ex. C7. However, the opposite parties effected a change of electricity connection in the name of one Mr. Rohit Saggu on the basis of some transfer deed Ex. R2. This fact is also reflected from the bill dated 24.10.2018 Ex. C9 and Ex. C10. It is also pertinent to mention that the complainant was having electricity account No.3015048293 which was also changed to account No.3005047491 in the name of Rohit Saggu.

7.                The point of determination which arises whether the act of the opposite parties for effecting change of electricity meter is justified or not.

8.                Admittedly, the electricity meter connection was installed in the name of complainant Kulwant Singh in his plot having boundary wall and submersible. He did not sell or transfer any part of the land either to Neelam Saggu or her son Rohit Saggu. Ex. R2 is a gratuitous transfer between other (Neelam Saggu) in favour of her son (Rohit Saggu).Even in this document there is no recital to the fact that there exists an electricity connection in the plot to be transferred or the seller Neelam Saggu is transferring the electricity connection to Rohit Saggu as well. In such circumstances, the opposite parties were required to hear the complainant before effecting the change of meter. Admittedly, no notice was served upon the complainant. So the complainant has been condemned unheard. The position would have been different had he transferred the land in favour of Neelam Saggu or Rohit Saggu. The counsel for the opposite parties has drawn attention of this Commission towards the regulation No.304 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 2017, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:-

30.4. In the event of transfer of a property, the transferee shall submit an application inform PCL-CON (Annexure-15) along with A&A form and the following documents:-

a) Letter of consent of the previous owner for transfer connection.

b) In the absence of a letter of consent, the transferee shall provide proof of ownership of premises. In case of partition, details thereof or a family partition deed if any, may be submitted.

c) Incase the consent of the previous owner for transfer of the Security (consumption) cannot be produced, the applicant shall deposit security (consumption) and Security (meter) at prevalent rates. He shall also be liable to pay the outstanding dues, if any of the previous consumer.

The close scrutiny of these instructions also shows that the letter of consent of previous owner for transfer of connection was required but the opposite parties instead of adhering to condition 30.4 (a)  jumped for invoking clause 30.4 (b). As such, the change effected in the meter connection is arbitrary, illegal and also in derogation of principle of natural justice. It also amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are directed to restore the electricity meter bearing No.9044312 in the name of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of cop of order along with composite cost of Rs,10,000/-.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to the opposite parties to restore the electricity meter bearing No.9044312 in the name of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite costs ofRs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Kulwant Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd.                 CC/19/204

Present:       Sh. Diljot Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Manish Midha, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with direction to the opposite parties to restore the electricity meter bearing No.9044312 in the name of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite costs ofRs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.