Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/128

Swarnjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUnjab Power Corporation Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Lakhwinder Singh Chauhan

04 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :          128 of 2018

Date of Institution :      31.07.2018

Date of Decision :          4.06.2019

Swaranjit Kaur aged about 41 years, w/o Sikandar Singh r/o Ward No. 1, Bhan Singh Colony, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                          .....Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through Executive Engineer, Sub Urban, City, Faridkot, District Faridkot.
2.  Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.  The Mall, Patiala through Chairman.                                                                      .........Ops

           Complaint under Section 12 of the

                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                                

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present: Sh Lalwinder Singh Chauhan, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh M S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the amount of Rs.68,770/- raised by Ops in bill dated 7.04.2018 and for further directing them to pay compensation for

 

cc  no.128 of  2018

harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses to complainant.

2                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a house from Harnek Singh in year 2011 in which electric meter connection bearing no.3000393508 was installed. At the time of purchase, said Harnek Singh apprised complainant that no dues pertaining to consumption charges were outstanding against him and since then, complainant has been using the said connection and has been all the bills regularly and timely and nothing is due towards her. It is submitted that complainant received a bill dated 22.02.2018 for Rs.6540/-which was duly paid by her. Further submitted that complainant received bill dated 7.04.2018 in which amount of Rs.68,770/-was charged for 452 units, which is quite illegal and unlawful. Complainant approached Ops and requested them to withdraw the said bill, but all in vain. Despite repeated requests, Ops did not withdraw the  said bill, rather threatened her to disconnect her connection. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant for which she has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.68,770/- and also prayed to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

 

cc  no.128 of  2018

3                          Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 1.08.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                       On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objection that complainant was found using electricity un-authorizedly and assessment was made under section 126 of Electricity Act and therefore, complaint in hand is not maintainable. It is averred that complainant is not the consumer of Ops as connection in question is in the name of Harnek Singh and no intimation regarding change of name or any application for transfer of connection in the name of complainant was even given to them by complainant. As per complainant she purchased the said house from Harnek Singh but as per mandatory rules and regulations of Ops,  no A & A form alongwith letter of consent of previous owner for transfer of connection in her name in the absence of which no proof of ownership was submitted by complainant. There is no bilateral contract between complainant and Ops and all the allegations levelled by complainant are incorrect and wrong. On merits, OPs have denied all the allegations being wrong and incorrect and averred that connection in question is in the name of Harnek Singh, who was availing concession under WSD Scheme. Complainant kept availing the concession under WSD Scheme meant for weaker section and did not disclose about the purchase of house to them and this fact came to the notice of OPs during checking conducted by Assistant Executive Engineer of PSPCL alongwith other officials of OPs on

cc  no.128 of  2018

20.05.2017. It was found that connected load of meter was 3.17 KW against sanctioned load of .260 KW. He was also detected availing WSD concession whereas this permissible upto load of 1 KW. Thereafter, WSD concession was stopped to her connection and Checking Authority declared it to be a case of un-authorized use of electricity under Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003. Checking report was prepared on spot and it was signed by complainant in the presence of all. Rs.64,690/- were charged for unauthorized use of electricity in which Rs.6510/- are charged as ACD, Service Connection Charges and Load Surcharge. Notice vide memo no.675 dated 25.05.2017 was issued to complainant alongwith full detail of amount charged. Amount charged is correctly assessed and complainant is liable to pay the same. There is no irregularity in it and they have every right to recover the same. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally and amount raised vide notice dated 25.05.2017 is still due and recoverable from him. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 7 and closed the same. 6                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh,

cc  no.128 of  2018

affidavit of Narain Dass JE Ex OP-2, affidavit of Malkit Singh Ex OP-3, affidavit of Jeet Ram AEE Ex OP-4, affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar Ex OP-5, documents Ex OP-6 to OP-16 and closed the evidence.

7                      We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the record available on file.

8                   From the careful perusal of documents placed on record and from the pleadings made by parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that she purchased her house from Harnek Singh in 2011 in which connection in question is installed. She has been paying all the bills regularly and nothing on account of consumption charges is due towards her. She received bill dated 7.04.2018 for Rs.68,770/- for 452 units which is very excessive and unlawful. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs have not withdrawn the said bill, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, OPs  brought before the Forum that complainant is not their consumer as connection in question is in the name of Harnek Singh and complainant has not applied before them for transfer of connection on her name. She has not complied with mandatory regulations for getting transferred the connection in her name. Ld counsel for Ops further disclosed that connection  was running in the name of Harnek Singh who was availing concession under WSD Scheme, but complainant did not disclose this thing to them and kept availing WSD concession since many years. It came to the  light while

cc  no.128 of  2018

doing checking by officials of PSPCL that cleared the fact that complainant was using connected load of 3.17 KW against sanctioned load of  0.260 KW. Complainant was also detected availing WSD connection which is permissible up to the load of 1KW. Thereafter, checking report was prepared on spot and complainant herself duly signed the same. Notice dated 25.05.2017 was issued containing full detail of amount charged, but complainant has failed to make payment of same. There is no irregularity in amount charged and complainant is liable to pay the amount charged for un-authorized use of electricity under Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003.

9                      In the light of above discussion and arguments advanced by parties, it is made out that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs in charging the amount on account of unauthorized  consumption of power units. OPs have given clear detail of amount charged and there is no illegality in it. Complainant is liable to pay the amount for the power consumed and OPs are entitled to recover the same. There seems to no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 4.06.2019

 

(Parampal Kaur)                          (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                            President