Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/460

Inder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

D.P.Bali Adv.

26 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:460 dated 27.09.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 26.04.2023.

 

Inder Singh Kalyan aged 86 years son of Sh. Sodagar Singh Kalyan, resident of Village Rajoana Kalan, Tehsil Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana.                                                                                                                            ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala through its MD.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub-Division Sudhar, Tehsil Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana, through its Asst. Engineer/S.D.O.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Adda Dakha Division, Ludhiana through its 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. D.P. Bali, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant is in possession of house situated at village Rajoana, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana where an electricity connection bearing account No.6511 is installed in his name and he paid fee of Rs.2695/- bearing receipt No.531 dated 26.09.2016 for its installation. The complainant stated that since installation of the said electric meter, he has been regularly paying the bills and nothing was ever due against him. The opposite parties in connivance with Babu Singh and others disconnected the electricity supply and removed the electricity meter from the house of the complainant in his absence when he was in abroad. The said Babu Singh is involved in civil suit filed by the complainant in which the complainant has been granted status quo order regarding alienation from the court of Sh. Pardeep Synghal, the then ACJ (SD), Jagraon vide order dated 12.03.2019. The said case is still pending in which the complainant has filed contempt petition against Babu Singh and others. The complainant further stated that on knowledge, he many times approached and requested the opposite parties to restore the electricity meter and supply but they postponed the matter on one or the other pretext. The complainant also moved a complaint before opposite party No.3 but no action has been taken by them and the opposite parties refused to restore the electricity meter and supply to the house of the complainant  due to which it is difficult for him to reside in house without electricity in the peak season of humidity. The complainant further stated that as per the norms of PSPCL (Circular No.7.1) any tenant can get install the electricity meter in his possession. Rather, the complainant is not the owner of his property but he is fully entitled to get restore the electricity meter and supply to his house but the opposite parties flatly refused to restore the electricity connection/meter and supply to his house. As per section 56 (1) of Electricity Act without giving clear notice of 15 days, PSPCL cannot disconnect the electricity supply.  The complainant again requested the opposite parties to restore the electricity connection/meter but they flatly refused to accept his request due to which the complainant suffered mental tension and agony on account of illegal acts of the opposite parties. In the end, the complainant prayed for directing the opposite parties to restore his electricity supply in his property and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of  Rs.11,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties filed joint written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties as Babu Singh has not been imploded as party;  suppression of true and material facts; maintainability of the complaint. The opposite parties stated the complainant applied a new electric connection with them on 26.09.2016 vide application & agreement form along with documents i.e. Aadhar Card, certificate regarding the ownership of the complainant issued by Harbans Singh Numberdar, Self-Declaration Affidavit on the basis of which, the opposite parties issued the Service Connection Order vide SCO No.64737/105 dated 26.09.2016 effected on 30.09.3016 in the presence of the complainant and after that the complainant was enjoying the said electric connection and paying the bills against the consumption consumed by him. Recently Babu Singh son of Saudagar Singh filed a complaint before the opposite parties with regard to the installation of the electric connection in the name of complainant in his house illegally and without his consent whereas the electric connection bearing Account No.AT12/0026F is already lying installed for the last 8 years. After receiving the said letter from Babu Singh, the opposite parties issued a letter memo No.300 dated 18.03.2019 to the complainant to produce the ownership proof regarding the property where the electric connection was installed, otherwise action will be taken as per the instructions of the PSPCL. Even on 22.03.2019 Babu Singh son of Saudagar Singh resident of Village Rajoana kalan, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana demanded the documents from the opposite parties pertaining to the electric bearing Account connection No.U13AT121285W. The opposite parties also served a letter Memo No.575 dated 02.04.2019 to the complainant in continuation of the letter Memo No.300 dated 18.03.2019 with regard to production of ownership document with regard to the property where the electric connection was installed. But despite receiving the above said letters, the complainant failed to supply any document regarding his ownership upon the property in question. On the other side, the opposite parties served the Memo No.797 dated 10.04.2019 to Babu Singh and supplied the information under the RTI Act regarding the connection of Inder Singh Kalyan. After waiting the prescribed period of notice served upon the complainant by the opposite parties, when the complainant failed to file any ownership document with regard to property where the electric connection was installed, the opposite parties issued the PDCO order No.92080/20 dated 24.05.2019 effected on 03.06.2019. Even Makhan Singh son of Amar Singh General Attorney of the complainant filed an application before the opposite parties to restore the electric connection which was received by the opposite parties on 24.06.2019. But in the said letter the attorney of the complainant has failed to disclose about the ownership of the complainant of the property in question, where the electric connection was installed. Even the   opposite parties received a letter No.104-105A dated 03.07.2019 from SHO Sudhar, regarding the electric connection of the complainant. The opposite parties issued a letter Memo No.964 dated 05.07.2019 to Harbans Singh Numberdar of Village Rajoana, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana with regard to the certificate issued by him in favour of the complainant at the time of installation of the new electric connection. In response to the said letter the said Harbans Singh Numberdar cleared the picture about the certificate issued by him in favour of the complainant and the said letter was received by the opposite parties on 31.07.2019. Even the opposite parties also informed to the SHO Sudhar, vide memo No.963 dated 05.07.2019 regarding the status of the electric connection. Since the complainant obtained the connection by misrepresenting the opposite parties and also failed to supply the ownership document with regard to the property in question, where the said electric connection was installed as such the opposite parties rightly disconnected the electric connection of the complainant to non supply of the documents with regard to the ownership.

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite parties admitted the installation of electric connection in the property in question on submission of required documents. Believing the version of the complainant, the opposite parties issued service connection order in his favour which was effected accordingly in favour of the complainant. At the time of installation of electric connection in the property in question, nobody has objected the opposite parties for the installation of electric connection but after receiving application from Babu Singh, the opposite parties served two letters to the complainant for supply of documents with regard to his ownership but he failed to do so and as such, his electric connection was rightly disconnected. The opposite parties denied any connivance with Babu Singh rather the complainant obtained the e4lctric connection by way of misrepresentation. The opposite parties further submitted that if the complainant is actually effected person then why he has not filed ownership proof with them which proves that the complainant is not the owner of the property where the electric connection was installed. Rest of the allegations have been denied as incorrect and in the end, opposite parties also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The complainant filed replication reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint and controverted those mentioned in the written statement filed by the opposite parties.

4.                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 receipt No.532 dated 26.09.2016, Ex. C2 to Ex. C4 are the copies of receipts of bills, Ex. C5 is the letter dated 20.09.2019 written by the complainant to the opposite parties, Ex. C6 is the copy of status quo order, Ex. C7 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant, Ex. C8 is the copy of self declaration, Ex. C9 is the copy of special power of attorney and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Er. Dharam Paul, Additional SE, Adda Dakha Division, PSPCL, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 is copy of request letter for installation of electric connection, Ex. R2 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant, Ex. R3 is the certificate issued by Harbans Singh Namberdar, Ex. R4 is the copy of self declaration, Ex. R5 is the copy of order No.105 dated 26.09.2016, Ex. R6 is the copy of letter for disconnection of meter by Babu Singh Kalyan, Ex. R7 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-13, Ex. R8 is the copy of memo No.300 dated 18.03.2019 of the opposite parties, Ex. R9 is the copy of memo No.575 dated 22.04.2019 of the opposite parties, Ex. R10 is the copy of order for disconnection, Ex. R11 is the copy of letter dated 19.06.2019 written by Makhan Singh to the opposite parties, Ex. R12 is the copy of civil suit, Ex. R13 is the copy of order of civil court, Ex. R14 is the copy of letter of written by police of Police Station Sudhar to the opposite parties, Ex. R15 is the copy of memo No.963 dated 15.07.2019 of the opposite parties, Ex. R16 is the copy of memo No.964 dated 15.07.2019 of the opposite parties, Ex. R17 is the copy of letter written by Harbans Singh Namberdar to the SDO, PSPCL, sub Division Sudhar, Ex. R18 is the copy of RTI application, Ex. R19 is the copy of memo No.797 dated 10.04.2019 and closed the evidence.

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

7.                Admittedly, the complainant applied for an electricity connection by moving an application Ex. R1 along with documents Aadhar card Ex. R2, certificate of ownership issued by one Harbans Singh Numberdar Ex. R3 and self declaration Ex. R4 and also deposited a sum of Rs.2695/- vide receipt No.532 dated 26.09.2016 Ex. C1. Thereafter, a service connection order SCO No.64737/105 dated 26.09.2016 Ex. R5 was issued and the electricity connection bearing account No.6511 was installed. Thereafter, the complainant paid the electricity bill Ex. C2 to Ex. C4. However, one Babu Singh made a complaint Ex. R6 against the complainant alleging that the complainant has fraudulently obtained the electricity connection despite the fact that another electricity connection was already in existence in the same premises and the complainant is not the owner of the said premises. Upon receipt of the complaint, a notice No.300 dated 18.03.2019 Ex. R8 was issued calling upon the complainant to submit the documents of ownership with regard to property wherein the electricity connection was installed at his request. However, another reminder vide letter No.575 dated 22.04.2019 Ex. R9 was issued but the complainant did not furnish the proof of ownership nor responded to the queries contained in the letter. Ultimately, a permanent disconnection order dated 24.05.2019 Ex. R10 was passed and which was effected on 03.06.2019. Parallel to these proceedings, the complainant and Babu Singh were litigating in civil court as well wherein  civil court had ordered to maintain status quo vide order Ex. R12 and Ex. R13. Proceedings qua disobedience for the interim order were also instituted. Not only this, the matter was reported to the police and police officials of Police Station Sudhar also made inquires and also called the status report from the opposite parties.

8.                The complainant filed the present complaint on 27.09.2019 i.e. about 3½ months from the date of disconnection effected vide order Ex. R10. The main grievance of the complainant is that the disconnection is in violation of section 56(1) of the Electricity Act. Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act is produced as under:-

Section 56. (Disconnection of supply in default of payment): -

(1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days’ notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer: Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits, under protest -

(a) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or

b) the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months, whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee.

From the perusal of Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act shows that this section is applicable when any person neglects to pay any charge of electricity due and it stipulates the procedure for disconnection where the defaulting amount is not paid. But in the present case, the electricity supply has been disconnected on account of the fact of submitting false document of ownership at the time of applying the electricity connection by the complainant and not because of  short or escaped assessment of electricity charges.

9.                However, from the chronology of above said events, it is crystal clear that the complainant was afforded reasonable opportunities by the opposite parties by issuing notices Ex. R8 and Ex. R9 whereby he was called upon to explain and submit the documents of the ownership but the complainant did not avail that opportunity. The basis of installing the electricity connection was the certificate of ownership issued by Harbans Singh Numberdar who clarified that it is the complainant who showed him the different premises and mislead him and relying upon the complainant, the said certificate was inadvertently issued. So from the above facts and circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the complainant had obtained the electricity connection on the basis of misrepresentation and the opposite parties were justified in disconnecting the same after giving him due opportunity. The principle of natural justice were duly complied with by the opposite parties and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

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

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (SanjeevBatra) Member                        Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Inder Singh Vs PSPCL                                                   CC/19/460

Present:       Sh. D.P. Bali, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 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)             (SanjeevBatra)

Member                         Member                            President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.