Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/369

Satpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Kamljit Sharma Adv.

12 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 369 of 08.06.2015

Date of Decision            :   12.10.2016 

 

Satpal Singh s/o Malkiat Singh r/o village Sahnewal, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sahnewal, Unit-3, Ludhiana.

2.Ranjit Singh s/o Bachitar Singh r/o W.No.6, Sahnewal, District Ludhiana.

 

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :          Sh.Rakesh Kumar, Advocate

For OP1                         :          Sh.Rajeev Malhotra, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Sh.Yash Paul, Advocate.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant, the owner of house situate at W.No.6, Kanech Road, Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, availed electricity connection                 No.W13SF011586 and thereafter, he had been making payment of the electricity bills regularly. This house was let out to OP2, who started using the electric connection in question. At present, connection bearing No.W13SF012122H is installed in the name of OP2, despite the fact that complainant has been making the payment of bills regularly. Complainant filed Eviction Petition before the Learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana and thereafter, warrants for possession of the above said house were ordered to be issued in favour of the complainant by the court. Complainant has obtained the possession of above said house in pursuance of the orders of Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, complainant got knowledge as if electricity connection earlier got installed by him is not continued, but new electricity connection No.W13SF012122H is installed in the premises. Thereafter, letter was written to SDO of Ops. Complainant came to know that new connection in the name of OP2 was installed on 3.2.2013 and original connection in the name of complainant was disconnected on 4.3.2013. All this was done by OP1 or its officials in connivance with OP2. Second connection cannot be installed in the same premises, when first connection was already working. Application under RTI Act was filed with OP1, but no response received thereto. The connection got installed by OP2 is continuing in the premises and complainant making the payment of electricity bills regularly, but despite that OP1 in connivance with OP2 did not issue the electricity bills to the complainant with motive of disconnecting the electricity connection in question. OP2 threatened to get the electric supply from the said connection disconnected. OP1 remained deficient in providing services to the complainant. New connection in the name of OP2 was installed by OP1 without consent and without any fault on the part of complainant. Prayer made for issuing directions to Ops to transfer the above said connection in the name of the complainant or restore the earlier connection of the complainant. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- claimed. Even restrictions sought against Ops for disconnecting the electricity supply of the complainant till the final decision of the complaint.

2.                In written statement filed by OP1, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint not maintainable in the present form because there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1. Admittedly, the complainant is the owner of the house, where electricity connection No.SF01/1586(hereinafter in short referred to as first original connection) was installed. Allegation of regular payment of the electricity bills specifically denied. Rather, it is claimed that first original connection was disconnected, due to default in payment of the consumption charges regularly. OP2 being the tenant of the complainant applied for new connection by filing application and agreement form dated 1.2.2013. On deposit of Rs.1420/- as charges for new electricity connection, second connection was issued in the name of OP2. Test report and other relevant documents were submitted by OP2 along with copy of judgment and decree dated 15.10.2012. On completion of legal formalities by OP2, OP1 was under legal obligation to install the connection in the premises of OP2 and that is why, new connection was installed vide SCO No.19511/34 dated 1.2.2013 with effective date of 3.2.2013. On 4.3.2013, OP2 submitted written request to OP1 for removal of the meter of electric connection bearing account No.SF01/1586 because OP2 claimed that he has obtained new connection in the same premises and that is why the meter of first original connection was removed. On 4.6.2015, the OP2 requested OP1 for shifting of the meter with second electricity connection account No.SF01/2122H from colony No.187 to Colony No.169 and thereafter, on deposit of minimum charges, the said shifting of the electricity connection took place. It is claimed that complainant by mis-representation, has filed this complaint. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In separate written statement filed by OP2, it is admitted that OP2 was tenant in the premises in question w.e.f.January 2008. Tenancy in favour of OP2 was oral coupled with delivery of possession. OP2 obtained second electricity connection from OP1 referred above and thereafter, he has been paying the consumption charges regularly to OP1, till the date of termination of the tenancy. OP2 claims to have applied for shifting of the second connection from colony No.187 to colony No.169 by filing application with SCO, Sahnewal of PSPCL. On deposit of minimum charges of Rs.250/- with OP1 and completion of formalities, the shifting of the electricity meter pertaining to second electricity meter took place. Complaint alleged to be filed on frivolous and false facts. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and thereafter, he along with his counsel closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA1 of Sh.Jaswinder Singh, Additional Superintendent Engineer of OP1 along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and then closed the evidence.

6.                Counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of OP2 along with documents Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/8 and then closed the evidence.

7.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

8.                Undisputedly, the first original connection was installed in the premises/house let out by the complainant to OP2 and thereafter, second electricity connection in the same house was installed on submission of written application Ex.R1=Ex.RW2/1 and on submission of copy of judgment dated 15.10.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.1479 of 24.2.2008 of Court of Sh.Munish Arora, the than Learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Ludhiana Ex.R2(Ex.RW2/3). Second electricity connection No.SF01/2122 was installed on issue of sanction order Ex.R3=Ex.RW3/5.

9.                Perusal of application and agreement form Ex.R1=Ex.RW2/5 reveals as if Op2 represented that he is owner/tenant of the house in question, for which, he applied for the electricity connection with the concurrence of landlord. The specific reference to clause no.4(2) of Ex.R1=Ex.RW2/1 can be made in this respect. When such representation was submitted by OP2 with OP1 for getting 2^nd electricity connection, then it was incumbent on the part of officials of OP1 to verify from the complainant/landlord as to whether he actually has concurrence with OP2 in obtaining second connection for the same premises, in which, first original connection was got installed by the complainant. However, no document produced on record to establish that said concurrence was ever submitted by the complainant and as such, OP2 with mis-representation qua concurrence of complainant obtained second electricity connection in the same premises, in which, the first original connection was got installed by the complainant. For such mis-representation by OP2, he must be   saddled with responsibility of bearing expenses of litigation and of compensation for mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant, proportionately.

10.              Complainant after getting possession of the house, in which, the electricity connection in question originally installed in the name of complainant by filed an application with SDO Ex.C1 on 16.01.2015 and thereafter, complainant submitted application under RTI Act as revealed by contents of Ex.C4, but no response thereto received and as such, it is obvious that the complainant got knowledge about the installation of the second electricity connection by OP2 only after getting of the possession of the house in pursuance of execution of orders passed by Hon’ble Rent Controller, Ludhiana. However, perusal of judgment Ex.R2=RW2/3 reveals that complainant along with his wife were restrained from dispossessing the OP2 as tenant from premises illegally or forcibly. This judgment was passed on 15.10.2012 and as such, virtually after going through this judgment, OP1 or its officials were bound to know that OP2 is just a tenant inducted in the house in question by the complainant w.e.f.January 2008 as claimed in para no.2 of this judgment by OP2.

11.              Regulation 5.1 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007(as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Regu.31 dated June 29, 2007 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette dated July 27, 2007) provides that licensee(OP1) on  receipt of an application from the owners or occupier of any premises to provide supply     of electricity to the premises within the specified time. In view of this, it was obligatory on the part of OP1 to ascertain as to whether the application for second connection filed by OP2 as an owner or occupier of the premises. Besides, Regulation 5.2 of above said regulations provides that OP2 will also specify the applicant as to what documents required to be submitted along with application form. So, it was the responsibility of officials of OP1 to obtain all the necessary documents from OP2 for ascertaining his status qua premises in question. Though, as per clause 4(2) of application and agreement form Ex.R1 concurrence of the landlord was required, but no such concurrence shown to be obtained and as such, virtually the second connection in the same premises issued by the officials of OP1 without concurrence of the landlord. That was an act of deficiency in service on the part of officials of OP1 resulting in suffering of harassment of the complainant, particularly when OP2 after vacating the premises, got the second connection shifted from Colony No.187 to colony No.169 by filing application Ex.RW2/6 on deposit of Rs.250/- through receipt Ex.RW2/8. As complainant was already having the first original connection installed in the premises in question, when second connection was got installed by OP2 as tenant and as such, it was for officials of OP2 to establish the circumstances leading to the disconnection of first original connection. No record product to show that the complainant committed default in payment of the electricity charges resulting in disconnection of the first original connection. Rather, the record produced establishes that officials of OP1 in connivance with OP2 issued the second connection in the name of OP2 in the same premises, in which, earlier electricity connection in the name of complainant was existing. That amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP1. OP2 got the first original electricity connection disconnected despite being in possession since 2008 as tenant and as such, he did so for causing unnecessary harassment to the complainant. As OP2 occupied the premises in question on payment of rent to the complainant, but failed to observe the rule of not getting the second connection installed in the same premises, in which, first original connection was already existing in the name of complainant and as such, OP2 virtually harassed the complainant. OP2 being tenant was bound to pay the electricity charges with     respect to the electricity connection as originally existing, but he committed default in payment resulting in alleged disconnection of the first original connection and as such, OP2 remained deficient in ensuring that electricity connection got installed     originally by complainant continuous with respect to the premises occupied by him. In view of non performance of the contractual obligation by OP2 to pay the electricity charges, fault lay with OP2 also in not rendering due services to his landlord i.e. complainant.

12.              It is vehemently contended by counsel for OP1 that as the connection has been released in favour of the complainant and as such, compliant has become infructuous. Action of releasing of connection in pursuance of the orders dated 31.8.2015 passed in this complaint on deposit of Rs.1552/- by the complainant itself reflect that OP1 has realized the deficiency and that is why connection in the name of complainant was released during the pendency of this complaint. That deficiency in service on the part of officials of OP1 is held as per above discussion, because concurrence of the complainant was never obtained at the time of release of second electricity connection in the name of OP2. So, even if disconnection of the first original connection took place on 4.3.2013 as claimed by counsel for OP1, despite that the complaint is not barred by limitation because the complainant got knowledge of such disconnection only on 13.1.2015, when he got the possession of the house from OP2 as revealed by contents of application Ex.C1. So, certainly, complaint is not barred by limitation at all and submissions of counsel for OP1 and OP2 to the contrary has no force. If electric connection released in the name of complainant during the pendency of the complaint, then there is no concealment of facts by the complainant in that respect. Action of getting second connection shifted by OP2 to the new premises is legally permissible and submissions of Sh.Yash Paul, Advocate representing OP2 has force in that respect. However, OP2 by mis-representation got the first original connection disconnected for causing wrongful loss to the complainant/landlord and as such, OP2 must share the responsibility of paying compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

13.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that Op1 will not disconnect the electric connection No.W13SF011586 installed/released during the pendency of this complaint, provided complainant keeps on depositing the bills regularly. OP1 will refund the deposited amount of Rs.1552/- by the complainant through receipt Ex.C9 within 30 days from the date of receipt of coy of this order. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) more allowed in favour of the complainant and against Ops. Liability of paying compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses will be joint and several of OP1 and OP2. Half of the adjudged amount of compensation and litigation expenses will be payable by OP1 and half by OP2. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

14.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:12.10.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.