Punjab

Sangrur

CC/197/2018

Keemat Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Anil K.Gupta

09 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  197

                                                Instituted on:    18.04.2018

                                                Decided on:       09.08.2018

 

Keemat Rai Aggarwal, Advocate aged about 76 years son of Sh. C.L. Aggarwal, resident of Prem Basti, Street No.1, Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman and Managing Director.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division, Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate.

For Opposite parties         :       Shri Dheeraj Jindal, Advocate.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Shri Keemat Rai Aggarwal, Advocate, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by using one domestic electric connection bearing account number S436143051W which has been installed in the house of the complainant for the last 35 years and the status of the meter is OK. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that he received a bill dated 5.6.2017 for 1531 units, whereby the OPs demanded an amount of Rs.20,010/- including sundry charges of Rs.8000/-, which bill was deposited by the complainant under protest.  Further now the complainant has challenged the bills for the month of March, 2018 and April 2018, whereby the Ops have demanded an amount of Rs.20899/- plus Rs.8570/-, which amounts pertains to one Jangira Singh, who has died about 22 years back and further the bill dated 13.4.2018 for Rs.34910/-, whereas the actual consumption was only 320 units.  Though the complainant approached the Ops for withdrawal of the said demands, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw/quash the bills dated June, 2017, March 2018 and April 2018 and further to pay compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the Ops, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complaint is false and frivolous one.  On merits, it has been admitted that the bill dated 5.6.2017 was issued which has been duly paid.  Further it is admitted that the bill for the month of March, 2018 for Rs.35,380/- was issued to the complainant, which includes the arrears of Rs.20899/- plus Rs.8570/- pertaining to one Jaggira Singh, from whom the son of the complainant, Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal had purchased the property and that the amount has rightly been raised against the complainant. Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-12 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

       

5.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs of connection bearing account number S4361430510W which has been installed in the premises of the complainant since long.  It is also not in dispute that the demand of Rs.20899/- plus Rs.8570/- have been added in the bill of the complainant, which pertains to one Jaggira Singh, from whom the son of the complainant Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal had purchased the property and the complainant and his son are residing together.   The complainant has produced on record the copies of various bills and receipts as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12, which clearly reveals that the complainant was not in the arrears, but the fact remains that the Ops have added this demand of Rs.20899/- plus Rs.8570/-in the bill dated 10.3.2018, Ex.C-3, which we feel is quite illegal and without any basis. It is worth mentioning here that though the complainant approached the Ops for withdrawal of the demand, but the Ops did not accede to the request of the complainant and told to pay the said demand. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that there was nothing due towards the complainant.  The Ops have produced nothing on record to show that the complainant and Anil Kumar Aggarwal are residing together.  Moreover, it is settled law that the demand of a consumer cannot be claimed from another consumer. The same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Haryana State Electricity Board versus M/s. hanuman Rice Mills Dhanauri and others 2010 AIR (SC) 3585.  So, it is not fair on the part of the OPs to claim the demand of Rs.20899/- plus Rs.8570/- total Rs.29,469/- from the complainant, whereas the Ops did nothing to recover the demand of Rs.29,469/- from the alleged defaulter Shri Jaggira Singh.  It is worth mentioning here that the OPs before including such a demand of Rs.29,469/- in the bill dated 10.3.2018, Ex.C-3 of the complainant, no separate notice has been issued to the complainant providing complete details of the demand.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops have miserably failed to prove on record that the amount of Rs.29,469/- is due against the complainant and the Ops have illegally inserted an amount of Rs.29,469/- in the current consumption bill dated 10.03.2018 of the complainant, and by inserting/raising such a demand against the complainant the OPs are not only deficient in rendering service but are also negligent towards the complainant/consumer. 

 

6.             In view of our above discussion and legal position explained above, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.29,469/- raised through the bills Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-5. We further order the Ops to refund to the complainant the amount, if any, deposited by the complainant against the above said demand. Ops are also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

7.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        August 9, 2018.

                                                                                       

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Presiding  Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member