BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

  Complaint No.119 of  2021

      Date of Instt. 17.03.2021

      Date of Decision: 29.05.2024

Avneet Singh, Advocate, S/o Sh. Jaspal Singh R/o Model Town, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall, Patiala through         its Chairman/Managing Director.

2.       The Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power   Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Commercial Unit No.2, Boot   Pind, Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Chandandeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. D. R. Seth, Adv. Counsel for the OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is consumer of electricity vide electric connection no.3005134547 installed at his office at Model House, Jalandhar, having a load of 2 KW. The complainant uses the said premises/office for attending his clients, giving legal advice, drafting in evening. The said connection was installed by OPs after the compliance of necessary formalities and documentation and deposit of requisite charges. The OP No.2 after verifying the test report, documents, technical feasibility and visiting the spot, installed the connection without any demur. Surprisingly the complainant on 22.10.2020, found bill no. 20239221020132117 of OP No.2 lying outside the office, wherein demand of Rs.50,755/- was made under the head sundry charges, without any details thereof. The complainant called OP No.2 and asked the reasons for making such huge demand under sundry charges but no plausible explanation was given to him, however on protest by the complainant, one of the official of OP No.2 informed the complainant that amount of Rs.50,755/- relates to another account no.3004770274 which has been permanently disconnected since long and amount pertaining to said account no. has been transferred in account no.3005134547 of the complainant. The complainant was directed to deposit the same failing which the connection shall be disconnected. The complainant was bewildered at the working of OPs. There is no provision in the law/rule and regulations of Powercom which may be invoked for making recovery from the complainant of dues of one account by adding in another account. More so, the agreement executed between the consumer and Powercom does not make any provision for realization from the consumer of due outstanding of another account. Otherwise also no inquiry or show cause or recovery proceedings were conducted by OP before making impugned demand. No opportunity of hearing was accorded to complainant before making demand under head sundry charges. No notice was served by the OPs before making demand under head sundry charges. The OPs have acted in gross forbiddance to their own rules and regulations wherein it is stipulated that before initiating proceedings or making any demand against consumer, competent authority must issue show cause notice, quote the relevant regulation under which the said action is being initiated. Assuming without admitting that complainant is in arrears of Rs.50,755/- against account no.3004770274 even then the outstanding amount against one connection cannot be added in bill of another account even if the demand relates to same consumer. Otherwise also the alleged amount of Rs.50,755/- is barred by law of limitation. The complainant cannot be deprived of right to get basic necessity like electricity. Right to life under Article 21 of constitution includes right to electricity. There cannot be survival without electricity. The OPs taking full advantage of their monopoly arbitrarily added the alleged defaulting amount of one account into another account, illegally and unlawfully and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to restrain from disconnecting the electric connection no.3005134547 of complainant and the demand of Rs.50,755/- raised vide Bill no.20239221020132117 dated 22-10-2020, pertaining to another connection no.3002978592, may kindly be cancelled/set aside and waived off by the Forum and further the amount, which the complainant may have to deposit to save his connection from disconnection, is liable to be refunded to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. The complainant further prays grant for damages of mental tension, agony, inconvenience and harassment and litigation expenses, as claimed above.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complainant by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the charges leveled are on account of defaulting amount as balance outstanding Rs.50,755/- from the temporary electric connection Account No.3004770274 which was changed and transferred to the Permanent Electric Connection Account No.3005134547 NRS in the name of the complainant Avneet Singh at the premises Model House, Jalandhar. The defaulting amount of Rs.50,755/- is inclusive of one cheque of Rs.20,000/- issued by the complainant and dishonoured on 13.8.2019. It is further averred that the complainant does not have any cause of action against the respondents. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further averred that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The complainant does not have the locus-standi to file the present complaint. It is further averred that this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint as the complainant should have approached the Dispute Settlement Committee a competent authority of the respondents to get his dispute decided/settled. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the electricity, vide electric connection No.3005134547. It is also admitted fact that the outstanding amount was transferred in the another account of the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                It is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the electricity, vide electric connection No.3005134547. The complainant has alleged that he is using this premise for attending his clients giving legal advice being an advocate. He has proved on record his identity card issued by Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana Ex.C-1. The complainant has disputed the impugned bill Ex.C-3 dated 22.10.2020 vide which the amount to be paid by the complainant has been shown as Rs.2,12,680/- and in this bill, the complainant has been charged Rs.50,750/- as sundry charges. As per the submission of the complainant, he came to know that this amount relates to another account No.3004770274, which has permanently disconnected This fact has been admitted by the OP and it has been alleged by the OP that the complainant was having a temporary electric connection Account No.3004770274 installed on 20.09.2017, which was closed on 26.04.2019. Thereafter the complainant got installed a permanent electric connection No.3005134547. At the time of disconnection of the temporary connection, the final bill of Rs.59,560/- was due towards the complainant as previous balance and the complainant is liable to make the payment of the same. The complainant issued two cheques of Rs.20,000/- of each which was deficient as the same were dishonoured. This amount of Rs.50,755/- shown as sundry charges is the balance outstanding, which has been transferred in the bill dated 22.10.2020 Ex.C-3 as per instructions and checking by the official of the Technical Unit No.3, Sub Division, Jalandhar.

7.                The complainant has alleged that no rules have been followed by the OP while issuing the bill for recovery of the outstanding bill of another connection, which the OP cannot take as, no show cause notice was ever given to the complainant, no notice was ever given to the complainant nor any enquiry was conducted nor any recovery proceedings were ever conducted by the OP nor any opportunity has been given to the complainant by the OP of being heard. No procedure as per provisions of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual, Supply Code and Sales Regulations has been followed by the OP.

8.                The OPs have produced on record the bills, the cheque which was allegedly dishonoured, and details of the amount due towards the complainant. The documents filed on record have been proved as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9. The OP has produced on record the checking register Ex.OP-10. As per the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 57.5, whenever the recovery of charges, if any is to be effected i.e. to be effected after serving the consumer with the notice of show cause and if the recovery is more than Rs10,000/-, then the consumer shall have right to appeal against the recovery. Similarly as per Supply Code 2017 Clause 30.1.2 that the bill cum notice for arrears in case of under assessment or the charges levied as result etc. shall be initially tendered separately and shall not be clubbed with the current electricity bill. The arrear bill cum notice would briefly indicate the nature and period of arrears along with calculation details of such arrears....... As per Electricity Supply Regulations 2005 Clause 102.2 Bill for arrears/supplementary assessment that the bill to a consumer on account of under assessment pointed out by the internal audit or the charges levied as result of report from Addl. S.E./AEE/Sr. Xen should not be clubbed with the current energy bill of the consumer.

                   In the present case, it is proved from the documents filed on record by the complainant as well as the OPs that the complainant got a temporary connection No.3004770274 prior to the connection, regarding, which, the bill has been issued. It is also proved that the previous connection was closed. It is also admitted fact that the outstanding amount was transferred in another account of the complainant having account No.3005134547. Now the point to be considered is as to whether the action of the OP is justified in transferring the amount of another i.e. the previous account in the existing account of the complainant, having two different connection numbers or account numbers. As per the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, it was mandatory upon the OPs to issue show cause notice or to give the opportunity to the complainant of being heard before transferring the outstanding amount in the current account of the complainant, but no show cause notice has been given to the complainant nor any recovery proceedings have been initiated nor any inquiry has been conducted to make the complainant aware that the outstanding amount is being transferred in his current account. Perusal of Ex.OP-10 shows that the checking was done on 27.11.2019, wherein it has been mentioned that the meter No.3004770274 has been removed from the premises and meter No.3005134547 is existing in the premises and it has been mentioned that the outstanding be transferred in account No.3005134547, but nothing has been mentioned in this document under what rules and provisions the order has been passed to transfer the outstanding amount of another account no.3004770274 in the current account No.3005134547. It has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in an Appeal No.746 of 2003, decided on 28.07.2003, case titled as ‘Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Garjit Kaur’ that ‘the demand relating to other connection added in the complainant’s account cannot be added in the bill of another connection’. It has further been observed that ‘even as per the rules of the OP, the outstanding amount against one connection cannot be added in another connection, even if the demands relates to same consumer’. It has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in an Appeal No.1324 of 2004, decided on 05.09.2006, case titled as ‘Subhash Chander Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board’ that ‘Non-payment of certain charges against one account holder. Disconnection of electric connection of other holder namely complainant. Complaint allowed Demand quashed Appeal for compensation Contention of O.P. that both these connections were in the same premises and were being used by complainant Not tenable Deficiency in service proved’. It has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in an Appeal No.199 of 2007, decided on 16.08.2011, case titled as ‘Lachman Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board’ that ‘Electric connection was in the name of H who was defaulter - New connection released in name of appellant in same premises - As per the regulations and circulars of the respondent, the respondent could recover the arrears outstanding against some other account in the same premises, but not subsequent to release of connection Then the arrears of the bill of H cannot be added in the bills of the electric connection of the appellant - For recovery of the arrears of the wife of the appellant, the electric connection of the appellant cannot be disconnected Interference warranted with the order of the District Forum’.

                   So, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, the outstanding amount of one connection cannot be added in another connection even if the consumer of both the connection is same. In the present case no rules and regulations have been followed by the OP, therefore, the demand raised by the OP in the impugned bill of Rs.50,755/- is wrong and illegal and accordingly, the same is set-aside.

9.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the amount of Rs.50,755/- demanded by the OPs vide bill dated 22.10.2020, is hereby set-aside. Extra payment, if any, made by the complainant to the OP regarding the outstanding amount of previous connection including the amount paid by the complainant as per order of the Commission dated 23.03.2021 be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in future bill and further OPs are directed not to disconnect the electric connection No.3005134547 of the complainant for the impugned bill. For the recovery of outstanding amount of another connection, if any, the OPs are at liberty to avail any remedy available to them, as per rules. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

29.05.2024         Member                          Member           President