Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/190

Jasbir Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M.S.Sethi Adv.

04 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                            Complaint No: 190 dated 09.03.2017.                                                               Date of decision: 04.10.2017.    

         

Jasbir Kaur 57 years w/o. Late Harman Singh, r/o. Gopal Nagar, Kartar Nagar, Tibba Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

                                                  Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Unit-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana through its Xen.

…..Opposite party 

                              Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate.

For OP                             :         Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                 Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant by pleading that she holds domestic electricity connection bearing No.3003180903 for residential use since after August 2015. Complainant claims to be paying bills regularly. Waryam Singh, official of OP visited premises of complainant on 08.03.2017 at 11.00 AM regarding enquiry as to the outstanding dues of Rs.46,000/-  approximately pertaining to some unknown account holder. Complainant enquired from him about the cause  and reason of said demand, but he did not disclose the same. Officials of OP disconnected the electricity supply to house of complainant on 08.03.2017, but later on in the evening with the intervention of area counsellor, supply was restored at 09.00 PM  after receiving the cheque No.253638 dated 14.03.2017 of amount of Rs.20,000/-. That cheque was handed over by complainant to the official of OP under compelling circumstances. Putting forth of demand of above said amount of Rs.46,000/- alleged to be in violation of rules and regulations of PSPCL because the demand put forth against another account holder cannot be enforced against the complainant. OP disclosed as if disputed demand of Rs.37,266/-  belongs to the year 2014. That demand put forth without serving any notice in writing, despite the fact that demanded dues belongs to other account holder. Said demand even alleged to be unenforceable because provisions of Section 56(2) of Electricity Act,2003 provides that the dues can be recovered within period of two years from the date, when they  first became due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, prayer made for setting aside disputed illegal demand. Compensation for mental tension and harassment of Rs.25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.7,500/- more claimed.

2.                 In written reply filed by OP it is pleaded, interalia, as if complaint is not maintainable because Sh. Waryam Singh, JE of OP after visiting premises of complainant put forth demand of Rs.46,674/- pertaining to account No.HB18/0475 electricity meter No.3003180903 was found lying installed in the same premises in which complainant residing. Said JE asked complainant to deposit the above said amount, but complainant deposited the amount of Rs.20,000/- by way of cheque after admitting her liability, but by claiming that electric meter pertains to Jarnail Singh, which was installed in the same premises. In view of part payment amount of Rs.20,000/-, it is claimed that complainant liable to pay the balance amount also. At the time of obtaining new connection, complainant filed application and submitted agreement form for installation of new connection. In that form, it was declared as if there was no defaulting amount due qua the premises, where the installation of new connection was sought. Further through that declaration, complainant claimed that if any amount is found due against the said premises, then complainant liable to pay the same. Each and every other averment of complaint denied. 

3.                 Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. CA along with document Ex. C1 and then closed evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Er. Kanwalpreet Singh Sidhu, Additional Superintending Engineer of OP along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R3 and then closed evidence.

5.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed. Those were heard and record gone through carefully.

6.                 After going through Ex. R2, it is made out that the amount of Rs.20,000/- paid by complainant at the intervention of area counsellor, out of the due amount claimable from account No.HB18/0475, which is  in the name of somebody else. It is mentioned in Ex. R2 itself that electric connection of complainant Jarnail Kaur bears account No.3003180903. Same fact even mentioned in the letter Ex. R3 sent by Assistant Executive Engineer of OP to Waryam Singh, JE. Through letters Ex. R2 and Ex. R3, Waryam Singh, JE was called upon to submit the detailed report because reply to be submitted in this Forum to be on the basis of his report. That detailed report of Waryam Singh has not been produced despite these letters. So in view of the contents of these letters, it is obvious that demand of amount of Rs.46,674/-  (mentioned in Ex. R1) virtually is put from complainant by OP with respect to another account by claiming as if somebody else was availing electric connection with other account number than that of the complainant in the premises occupied by the complainant. Name of that other person, who availed electricity supply through account No.HB18/0475 is not at all disclosed either in affidavit Ex. RA or in the written reply submitted by OP or in the letters Ex. R1 and Ex. R2. In view of this, certainly submission advanced by counsel for complainant has force that amount of electricity consumption charges due towards another sought to be recovered from complainant.

7.                 As per law laid down in para No.14 of case titled as Lachman Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board  bearing First appeal No.199 of 2007 decided on 16.08.2012 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, as per regulations and circulars of OP, (Punjab State Electricity Board) it can recover the arrears outstanding against some other account in the same premises before releasing new connection. Once the electricity connection released in name of new consumer like complainant of this case, then arrears of the bills of the previous occupier cannot be added in the bills of the electricity connection of new consumer. Further as per this cited case for the recovery of arrears of wife of the appellant of that case, electric connection of the appellant cannot be disconnected. Ratio of that case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case because here no record produced to show as to who was the earlier occupier against whom the demand of Rs.46,674/- is enforceable. Complainant got the connection in her residential premises after submitting application form and complying with other formalities and as such, certainly complainant not liable for payment of arrears of electricity consumption charges due towards the earlier occupier of the same premises, if any. So certainly demand in question liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. However, OP will be at liberty to recover the demanded amount from the concerned consumer, whosoever may have been in possession at the relevant time, but by following principles of natural justice. Complainant has not suffered much because it is admitted by counsel for complainant during course of arguments that though disconnection took place on 08.03.2017, but the restoration of the same took place on the same day and the complainant is enjoying the electricity connection in question by paying bills regularly. Dispute regarding these submissions not raised by counsel for OP and that is why it is held as if complainant has not suffered much by losing the electricity connection facility at all. So meager amount of compensation for mental harassment and litigation alone needs to be allowed, particularly when OP has not disconnected electricity connection of complainant except for short duration of few hours only.

8.                 As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that demand of Rs.46,674/- put forth regarding account No.E32HB180475K qua complainant only is quashed. However, OPs will be at liberty to recover this amount from the concerned consumer, whosoever may have been in possession at relevant time, but by following principles of natural justice. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OPs. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of orders be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                         (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                      (G.K. Dhir)

                                         Member                                              President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:04.10.2017.

Gobind Ram.