Gurbhej Singh filed a consumer case on 08 May 2015 against Punjab STate Power Corpn.Ltd in the Ludhiana Consumer Court. The case no is CC/15/47 and the judgment uploaded on 29 May 2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
CC No: 47 of 19.01.2015
Date of Decision: 30.04.2015
Gurbhej Singh s/o Kaka Singh r/o 392-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana.
..…Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Model Town U-2, Ludhiana through its XEN.
…..Opposite party
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum: Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President.
Ms.Babita, Member.
Present: Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.A.S.Walia, Advocate for OP.
ORDER
(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)
1. Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Gurbhej Singh (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Model Town U-2, Ludhiana through its XEN (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OP’)- directing them to set-aside the disputed demand of Rs.37,266/- as claimed in the bill dated 1/2015 alongwith its surcharge and to refund of the deposited amount with interest @12% besides to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is consumer of OP against electricity account no.W32GT322453H under domestic supply installed at 392-A, M.T.Extension, Ludhiana. Said connection is now 20 years old which is being used by the complainant and his family since its installation and the complainant paying its consumption charges since the installation of said connection. The OP vide bill dated 16.1.2015 claimed Rs.37,266/- under the sundry charges head without disclosing its cause, reason and without any explanation. However, on approaching OP, it was disclosed by them that said demand relates to the account No.MT22/3767 of one Kala r/o SBS Nagar, Dhandra Road, Ludhiana and due to non-recovery of said amount, it is claimed from the complainant and threatened to disconnect despite of request made by the complainant to waive off the illegal demand from its account number but they refused to do so. The complainant is not liable to pay the disputed amount of Rs.37,266/- relates to any other account holder. The OP is debarred from claiming previous arrears/outstanding/dues from the complainant. There is no provision in the Electricity Act/regulations/rules etc, authorizing the OP to recover the dues of any account holder from the other account holder, as such, the demand claimed by the OP is claimed to be illegal, arbitrary and amount to violation of rules/regulations/EA2003 etc. Further, OP claimed the disputed demand of Rs.37,266/- relates to the year 2000 etc., and first time claimed through bill dated 16.1.2015 which is time barred and every bill has its own limitation from the date of its issue, so demand of Rs.37,266/- for the said period is time barred as per EA2003 where Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The complainant has no implied responsibility or liability against the outstanding demand of Rs.37,266/- of the OP against the defaulter connection MT22/3767. The complainant has its own electricity connection since long backs and defaulter connection was not exists at his premises 392-A, M.T.Extension, Ludhiana at any time. Property/premises where disputed defaulting connection was not relates or owned by the complainant and the complainant has no nexus/relation with the account holder or defaulter account number MT22/3767. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice of the complaint, OP was duly served and appeared through Sh.A.S.Walia, Advocate and filed the written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed being without any merits. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Consumer Forum. True facts are that earlier as per checking report dated 8.8.2014, one electric connection under account No.MT-22/3767 was lying installed in the name of Kala at Shaheed Bhagat Nagar, Ludhiana and that connection was permanently disconnected by OPs due to defaulting amount of Rs.37,266/- outstanding against A/c No.MT-22/3767 and after that defaulting amount was demanded from the consumer who was residing in the same premises having connection account No.Mt-17/428(new) and MT-22/6941 (old) but the present owner/resident of the premises Gurdawar Singh told the checking authority that he has purchased the premises from complaint son of Kaka Singh who is residing at present at 392-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana when as per information of Gurdawar Singh son of Sh.Niranjan Singh checking authority visited at 392-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana to verify the fact, then they found that in the premises of complainant connection account No.GT-32/2453 is lying installed and owner of the house told that he has sold the house to Gurdawar Singh, where earlier connection account No.MT-22/3767 was lying installed. Checking authority advised to take action as per rules of department. Copy of checking report was sent to concerned office alongwith photocopy of written request of Gurdawar Singh and after that on the basis of LCR dated 8.8.2014, notice memo No.2287 dated 4.12.2014 was issued in the name of Kala and defaulting amount of Rs.37,266/- was demanded from consumer of connection account No.GT-32/2453 of Gurbhej Singh which was charged through sundry register entry No.28/146, R-788 and defaulting amount was included in the bill dated 16.1.2015 of connection account No.GT-32/2453 but complainant after receiving the bill challenged the same by way of filing this complaint knowing fully well that he is liable to pay defaulting amount qua his connection A/c No.MT22-3767 being its earlier connection. On merits, the facts qua complainant is consumer of connection account No.GT-2453 lying installed at 392-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana and raising of demand of Rs.37,266/- vide bill dated 16.1.2015 including sundry charges are admitted. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying the contents of all other paras, answering OP made prayer for the dismissal of the complaint.
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, the learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record document Ex.C1.
5. On the contrary, in order to rebut the case of the complainants, learned counsel for the OP 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 written reply filed by OP and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the Op has proved on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the evidence as well as file very carefully.
7. Perusal of the record reveals that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant is holder of domestic electric connection having account No.W32GT322453H which was installed at the address r/o 392-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana. Further, as per the allegations of the complainant that the OP vide bill dated 16.1.2015 had claimed Rs.37,266/- under sundry charges head without disclosing its cause, reason and without any explanation. Further, there is specific allegations of the complainant that later on, it was disclosed by the OP that the said demand relates to the account No.MT22/3767 of one Kala r/o SBS Nagar, Dhandra Road, Ludhiana and due to non-recovery of said amount, it is claimed from the complainant and they threatened to disconnect despite request made by the complainant to waive off the illegal demand from its account number Further, the amount claimed from the complainant relates to the year 2000 and first time claimed through bill dated 16.1.2015 which is time barred as per Electricity Act, 2003. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the OP that earlier as per checking report dated 8.8.2014, one electric connection under account No.MT-22/3767 was lying installed in the name of Kala at Shaheed Bhagat Nagar, Ludhiana and that connection was permanently disconnected by OPs due to defaulting amount of Rs.37,266/- outstanding against A/c No.MT-22/3767 and after that defaulting amount was demanded from the consumer who was residing in the same premises having connection account No.MT-17/428(new) and MT-22/6941 (old) but the present owner/resident of the premises Gurdawar Singh told the checking authority that he has purchased the premises from complainant son of Kaka Singh who is residing at present at 392-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana when as per information of Gurdawar Singh son of Sh.Niranjan Singh checking authority visited at 392-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana to verify the fact, then they found that in the premises of complainant connection account No.GT-32/2453 is lying installed and owner of the house told that he has sold the house to Gurdawar Singh, where earlier connection account No.MT-22/3767 was lying installed.Checking authority had advised to take action as per rules of department.
8. Perusal of the evidence of OP reveals that OP has relied upon document Ex.R1 copy of checking report, vide which, it has been reported that Sh.Girdawar Singh s/o Sh.Niranjan Singh had sold this Ahata to Sh.Gurbhej Singh s/o Sh.Kaka Singh, whose r/o is 392-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana. Sh.Girdawar Singh s/o Niranjan Singh had also referred in his letter that in Khata No.W-32 MT-31-0489-X new number GT-32-2453 meter was lying installed and the owner of the house told that he had sold the aforesaid Ahata to Sh.Girdawar Singh. Further, OP has placed on record copy of letter dated 4.12.2014 Ex.R2 addressed to Sh.Kala, SBS Nagar, By pass New issued by the OP qua recovery of default amount against connection No.MT-22-3767 and copy of letter written by Sh.Girdawar Singh and Niranjan Singh to the S.D.O. Model Town Ludhiana. However, perusal of the evidence of OP reveals that the OP has failed to prove on record any proof of ownership of the house which earlier allegedly belong to the present complainant/consumer and also to prove that he had sold the said Ahata to Sh.Girdawar Singh and furthermore, the alleged recovery relates to year 2000 as per the allegations of the complainant.
9. In view of the above discussion, we hereby partly allow the present complaint and hereby quash the demand of Rs.37,266/- raised vide bill dated 16.1.2015 from the complainant and direct the OP to re-examine the case of the complainant and to take into possession the documents, from which, it could be presumed that the said Girdawar Singh purchased the said Ahata from the complainant Sh.Gurbhej Singh s/o Kala Singh and further, amount in dispute belong to Sh.Gurbhej Singh s/o Kala Singh and to pass a fresh order of demand, if the same is not time barred. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no order as to compensation is passed. However, OP is burdened with Rs.2000/- as litigation costs payable to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
(Babita) (S.P.Garg) Member Member
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:30.04.2015
GurpreetSharma
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.