1.                Present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by Sh.Ashok Kumar(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Punjab State Electricity Board, now known as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall,Patiala, through its Director and others(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to restore the electricity meter to the premises of the complainant immediately and to pay him damages of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that Punjab & Sind Bank, New Janta Nagar Branch, Ludhiana took into possession of the property No.B-17-1746, Quarter No.7, measuring 80 Sq.yards, near Azad Nagar, Dhuri Lines, Chitte Quarters, Ludhiana under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 and then auctioned the said property. Rajiv Jain son of Sh.Suresh Jain, resident  of House no.611, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana purchased the said property in open auction and thereafter, the bank issued one sale letter dated 15.6.2005 in favour of said Rajiv Jain. Later on, sale deed bearing Wasika No.11964 dated 22.11.2013 was also issued by the bank in favour of said Rajiv Jain. After 15.6.2005, said Rajiv Jain became exclusive owner in possession of said property. Being so, said Rajiv Jain entered into an agreement to sell the said property in favour of the complainant in the year 2009 and he received full and final sale consideration and handed over the possession of the property aforesaid to the complainant. Afterwards, Rajiv Jain executed sale deed dated 6.5.2014 bearing Wasika No.1966 dated 9.5.2014 in favour of Neelam Rani wife of complainant. In the said sale deed, Rajiv Jain clearly mentioned that no amount is due towards Municipal Corporation or electricity department. The complainant applied for new connection with the Ops on 26.4.2012 and deposited the security amount and after considering the request of the complainant and after checking the entire record, the Ops issued new connection bearing No.W32MT132249M in the name of the complainant in the aforesaid property. The first bill No.198 dated 28.9.2012 was for the period from 9.7.2012 to 28.9.2012 showing old meter reading as 2 and new reading as 124 i.e. consumption of 122 units and the complainant had deposited the said consumption charges and thereafter, had been regularly receiving and depositing the electricity bills. The complainant received last bill dated 3.2.2014 for the period from 10.12.2013 to February 2014 for Rs.380/- which was also paid by the complainant. Thereafter,no bill was received by the complainant. The complainant has been regularly visiting the said property after one week or two weeks but no bill was received by him. When the meter Reader Kuldeep Singh supplied bills to the neighbours of the complainant, he asked for bill of his property, who told the complainant to wait for some days. However, even after the passing of two months, no bill was sent by the Ops to the complainant. Rather, the Ops removed the aforesaid meter got installed by the complainant. When complainant asked Kuldeep Singh meter Reader, he asked the complainant to meet Harjit Singh as there is some problem in the meter. In the month of July, 2014, the complainant met JE Harjit Singh, but he also dilly delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and finally, he asked the complainant to meet AE(Tech) Kulwant Singh and in the month of August, 2014, the complainant met said Kulwant Singh and asked him the reason of not sending him the bills and for removing his meter. However, said Kulwant Singh also failed to give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. The fact remains that the Ops in connivance with each other have removed the meter of the complainant without any default on his part. All the requests made by the complainant to the Ops to restore the electric meter have fallen on their deaf ears. Even the complainant is ready to deposit the actual consumption charges or the minimum charges, if any, due against him.  No notice of any kind was served upon the complainant before removal of the meter. Such act and conduct of Ops is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complainant, Ops were duly served and appeared through their counsel Sh.A.S.Walia, Advocate and filed their written statement, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the above complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed being without any merits. The complainant has not disclosed the actual facts and has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. True facts are that earlier in the same premises, electric connection bearing account No.SP-27/105 was lying installed in the name of Smt.Gurinder Kaur, who was consumer of Industrial Connection. As per direction of Additional S.E., Model Town, Division Special, Ludhiana dated 13.11.2013, above premises was checked by Harjit Singh, AJE on 2.12.2013 through checking report No.72/568 dated 2.12.2013 prepared at site. It was mentioned in the checking report that house was lying locked and in the house, now electric connection bearing account No.MT-13/2249 is lying installed. Action be taken accordingly. It was also mentioned in the report that the present owner is not showing his ownership proof. However, against earlier connection of SP category which was disconnected by answering Ops due to huge defaulting amount of Rs.5,36,156/- outstanding against SP connection in the same premises, where now electric connection bearing account NO.MT-13/2249 was lying installed. So, in order to recover the defaulting amount of SP connection, same was transferred in the account of complainant’s connection through sundry register entry SCA and alongwith MMC bills which were not deposited by the complainant as per ledger till 8/2014 which total sum of Rs.5,90,760/- is outstanding and recoverable at present, so connection of the complainant was disconnected due to non-payment of above amount. Earlier while applying for connection on his name, complainant has given false declaration that no amount of any kind is outstanding against the said premises against any person which declaration was also found false by the answering Ops. Unless the whole amount is deposited stated above connection of the complainant cannot be restored. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant applied for new connection in defaulted premises and deposited security and electric connection bearing account No.MT-13/2249 was released and after that bills were issued on MMC basis. However, false declaration was given by the complainant in A & A form to get the new connection. The fact regarding payment of bills deposited by the complainant is not denied being matter of record. However, after that the complainant has not deposited bills and in 8/2014 alongwith defaulting amount of SP connection total sum of RS.5,90,760/- was outstanding in billing ledger which was not deposited. It is denied that no bill was issued after February, 2014. The allegations are totally defamatory as there is no connivance of answering Ops as alleged by the complainant. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying all other allegations of the complainant and any deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs, answering OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant in order to prove the case of the complainant adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CB of Sh.Jaswinder Pal, in which, he has also corroborated the version of complainant as taken by him in the complaint. Further, the learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14.

5.                On the contrary, in order to rebut the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the OPs adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.Sanjeev Parbhakar, its Additional S.E., in which, he has reiterated all the contents of reply filed by OPs and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the OP has proved on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 7.              

7.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the present complainant who has stepped into the shoe of the previous auction purchaser of the property in question and has relied upon judgments titled as Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd and others vs. M/s. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., and others-2009(1)Apex Court Judgments 122(S.C.) ; Haryana State Electricity Board vs. M/s Hanuman Rice Mills & others-2010(3)Apex Court Judgments 234(S.C.) and Ahmedabad Electricity Co.Ltd., vs. Gujarat Inns.Pvt.Ltd.,and others-2004(1)Apex Court Judgments 515(S.C.).

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has strongly contended that Ops have rightly disconnected the electricity of the electric connection of the complainant due to non-payment of the defaulting amount of Rs.5,36,156/- which was due prior to the installation of the connection of the complainant and at the time of filing of the application for grant of electric connection on Form A & A, it was undertaken by the complainant vide clause viii that if there are any due against this premises prior to any connection, he will pay the defaulting amount. So, the complainant is bound to pay the outstanding amount and only then, he can get his connection restored.

9.                We have considered the rival contention of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments placed on record by learned counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments and have also gone through the documents on record very carefully.

10.              Perusal of the record reveals that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant is holding an electric connection bearing account No.W32MT132249M. It is further an undisputed fact that earlier Punjab & Sind Bank, New Janta Nagar Branch, Ludhiana had taken into possession of the property No.B-17-1746, Quarter No.7, measuring 80 Sq.yards, near Azad Nagar, Dhuri Lines, Chitte Quarters, Ludhiana under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 and then had auctioned the said property which was purchased by Sh. Rajiv Jain son of Sh.Suresh Jain, resident  of House no.611, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana, who further sold the same to the present complainant. However, the sale deed of the property in question was executed in the name of Neelam Rani i.e. wife of the complainant.

11.              Perusal of the checking report No.72/568 dated 2.12.2013 Ex.R1 reveals that this report was submitted by Sh.Harjit Singh, AJE with the remarks that house is closed. But meter No.MT13/2249(as written on the box)is installed there and he has given the reference of defaulting amount of Rs.5,36,156/-. But evidence of the Ops further reveals that this checking was got conducted by the Ops on 2.12.2013. However, the Ops have not placed on record any demand notice or letter calling upon the complainant to pay this defaulting amount and further, Ops have not debited this amount in the account of the complainant and have not served any bill qua this amount. Further, learned counsel for the Ops has not assigned any reason why the Ops remained silent to recover this amount from the complainant if they were legally entitled to recover the aforesaid amount at the time of releasing the new connection to the complainant on the same premises, where the defaulting amount is pending nor assigned any reason for not making any demand by way of serving any bills, letters or notice after the checking report dated 2.12.2013 Ex.R1. Rather, perusal of the bill and receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.Ex.C12 which have been placed on record by the complainant reveal that only the bills have been served upon the complainant for the consumption of electricity against the meter bearing No.W32MT132249M and the payments were being made by the complainant to the Ops vide different receipts.

12.              So, it appears that the Ops have never made any demand of the aforesaid disputed amount from the complainant before disconnecting the electricity supply of the complainant. Further, the Ops have not placed on record any documents, from which, it could be presumed that the Ops have taken any action against the erring official who made the concerned report for releasing the new connection bearing No.W32MT132249M in favour of the complainant when if any defaulting amount was already outstanding on the same premises. The Ops have not placed on record any documents in order to prove, to which, period this defaulting amount relates and whether the same is within limitation or time barred. Furthermore, perusal of the checking report Ex.R1 reveals that name of Smt.Gurinder Kaur was recorded against the above connection holder. Though, this connection bearing account No.MT13/2249 stands in the name of present complainant and how the complainant is connected with the aforesaid Smt.Gurinder Kaur. So, it appears that Ops have arbitrarily and illegally disconnected the electric supply of the connection without going through the record and as well as applying their mind which clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Further, we find force from the judgment placed on record by the learned counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments titled as Ahmedabad Electricity Co.Ltd., vs. Gujarat Inns.Pvt.Ltd.,and others-2004(1)Apex Court Judgments 515(S.C.), in which, it was observed that auction purchaser taking fresh electric connection, he is not liable to clear the arrears incurred by previous owner.

13.              In view of the above discussion, by allowing this complaint, we hereby direct the Ops to restore the electricity supply of the electric connection bearing account No.MT/13/2249 installed at the premises No.B-17-1746 of the complainant within 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to an application moved by the complainant for restoration and alongwith payment of dues of electricity, if any, qua the electricity consumption units consumed by the complainant qua his electric connection, if any. Further, Ops are directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, Ops are at liberty to recover the defaulting amount from the concerned person by adopting the required procedure in accordance with law. Compliance of order qua compensation and litigation costs be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

                   (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

                                  Member                     President    

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:08.12.2014

Gurpreet Sharma.