BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.331 of 2015

Date of Instt. 10.08.2015

Date of Decision :20.05.2016

Narinder Kaur wife of Jaspal Singh R/o Village Kala Khera, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Mall Road, Patiala through its Chairman.

2.XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Shakit Sadan, Near Lyallpur Khalsa College, GT Road, Jalandhar.

3.SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Kartarpur, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Gurvinder Arora Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.KL Dua Adv., counsel for OPs.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that Kewal Singh father-in-law of the complainant was having electric connection in his name. Said Kewal Singh expired and the said electric connection was being used by husband of the complainant namely Jaspal Singh. Said electric connection was disconnected by the OP and got registered FIR No.70 dated 31.7.2011 under section 135 of Electricity Act 2003 at PS Anti Power Theft, Jalandhar against Kewal Singh(deceased) on the allegations that Kewal Singh was found committing theft of electricity on 9.7.2011, whereas said Kewal Singh had already expired prior to that. However, the OP got arrested husband of the complainant on 28.2.2012 in the aforesaid FIR No.70. Ultimately, Jaspal Singh husband of the complainant was acquitted by the court of Sh.Gurjant Singh, Addl.Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 25.7.2012 and Jaspal Singh husband of the complainant has filed suit for recovery of damages against State of Punjab which is pending for adjudication in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. Complainant intended to apply for new electric connection in her name in the said house and purchased the prescribed form from OP and after filling in the same submitted before the OP in February 2014 but the OPs illegally returned the application and did not admit the same by mentioning that a sum of Rs.24,394/- as defaulting amount of theft is outstanding. As such, they refused to install new electric connection in the name of the complainant in that house and returned the said form to the complainant. Complainant submitted that complainant is ready to deposit the necessary expenses/fee for the installation of new electric connection in the said house. OPs have illegally refused to even accept the application form of new electric connection of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to install the new electric connection. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply pleading that amount of Rs.24,394/- and Rs.48,234/- as compensation on account of theft of electricity are outstanding against the premises in question where the new electric connection has been applied for by the complainant. So, the present connection can not be released in the premises in question until and unless the amount raised are deposited. The OPs submitted that earlier two cases of theft of electricity were registered against that electric connection in the same premises. So, new electric connection can not be released in that house. OPs further submitted that electric connection was in the name of Kewal Singh father-in-law of complainant who was owner of the house in question. The connection was disconnected on account of non payment of outstanding amount of Rs.24,394/-. FIR No.70 dated 31.7.2011 under section 135 of the Electricity Act was registered at Anti Power Theft Police Station, Jalandhar against Kewal Singh father-in-law of the complainant. In the judgment dated 25.7.2012, it was held that Kewal Singh father-in-law of the complainant had died much prior to registration of the FIR. The case was registered on the basis of checking dated 9.7.2011 when Sh.Jaspal Singh husband of the complainant was actual consumer of the electricity and was committing theft of electricity. So, Jaspal Singh was arrested in that case and was tried but he was acquitted by the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 25.7.2012 on technical grounds because the OP, complainant in that FIR were not aware that the owner of the electric connection Kewal Singh had already expired. So, inadvertently that case was registered against Kewal Singh deceased and not against Jaspal Singh husband of the complainant who was actually using and committed theft of electricity against said connection at the time of checking dated 9.7.2011. Notice under section 135 of the Electricity Act was also issued in the name of Kewal Singh, not against the husband of complainant Jaspal Singh and the OP has failed to connect that Jaspal Singh was in occupation of the house in question. Once, the complainant has admitted that her husband Jaspal Singh was in possession of the house after the death of Kewal Singh. So, Jaspal Singh is liable to pay the charges. The court of Addl.Seesions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 25.7.2013 did not quash the notice under section 135 of the Electricity Act nor quashed the recovery of aforesaid amount from Jaspal Singh, the actual beneficiary of the electric connection where theft was deducted on 9.7.2011 at the time of checking by the staff of the OP. So, until and unless the aforesaid outstanding amount against that electric connection in the same house is not deposited with the OP, no new electric connection can be sanctioned/installed in the said premises as per rules and regulations of the OP. OPs submitted that OPs have rightly refused to install the new electric connection in the name of the complainant in the said premises. OPs denied other material averments of the complainants.

3. In support of her complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copy of document Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that Kewal Singh father-in-law of the complainant was having electric connection in his name. Said Kewal Singh expired and the said electric connection was being used by husband of the complainant namely Jaspal Singh. Said electric connection was disconnected by the OP and got registered FIR No.70 dated 31.7.2011 under section 135 of Electricity Act 2003 at PS Anti Power Theft, Jalandhar against Kewal Singh(deceased) on the allegations that Kewal Singh was found committing theft of electricity on 9.7.2011, whereas said Kewal Singh had already expired prior to that. However, the husband of the complainant was arrested on 28.2.2012 in the aforesaid FIR No.70. Ultimately, Jaspal Singh husband of the complainant was acquitted by the court of Sh.Gurjant Singh, Addl.Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 25.7.2012 ExC3 and Jaspal Singh husband of the complainant has filed suit for recovery of damages against State of Punjab which is pending for adjudication in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. Complainant intended to apply for new electric connection in her name in the said house and purchased the prescribed form from OP and after filling in the same submitted before the OP in February 2014 but the OPs illegally returned the application and did not admit the same by mentioning that a sum of Rs.24,394/- as defaulting amount of theft is outstanding. As such, they refused to install new electric connection in the name of the complainant in the same house and returned the said form Ex.C1 to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant is ready to deposit the necessary expenses/fee for the installation of new electric connection in the said house. OPs have illegally refused to even accept the application form for new electric connection, of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the OPs is that amount of Rs.24,394/- and Rs.48,234/- as compensation on account of theft of electricity are outstanding against the premises in question where the new electric connection has been applied for by the complainant. So, the present connection can not be released in the premises in question until and unless the amount raised are deposited. The OPs submitted that earlier two cases of theft of electricity were registered against that electric connection in the same premises. So, new electric connection can not be released in that house. OPs further submitted that electric connection was in the name of Kewal Singh father-in-law of complainant who was owner of the house in question. The connection was disconnected on account of non payment of outstanding amount of Rs.24,394/-. FIR No.70 dated 31.7.2011 under section 135 of the Electricity Act was registered at Anti Power Theft Police Station, Jalandhar against Kewal Singh father-in-law of the complainant. However, in the judgment dated 25.7.2012, it was held that Kewal Singh father-in-law of the complainant had died much prior to registration of the FIR. The case was registered on the basis of checking dated 9.7.2011 when Sh.Jaspal Singh husband of the complainant was actual consumer of the electricity and was committing theft of electricity. So, Jaspal Singh was arrested in that case and was tried but he was acquitted by the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 25.7.2012 Ex.C3 on technical grounds because the OP, complainant in that FIR were not aware that the owner of the electric connection Kewal Singh had already expired. So, inadvertently that case was registered against Kewal Singh deceased and not against Jaspal Singh husband of the complainant who was actually using and committed theft of electricity against said connection at the time of checking dated 9.7.2011. Notice under section 135 of the Electricity Act was also issued in the name of Kewal Singh and not against the husband of complainant Jaspal Singh and the OP has failed to connect that Jaspal Singh was in occupation of the house in question. Once, the complainant has admitted that her husband Jaspal Singh was in possession of the house after the death of Kewal Singh. So, Jaspal Singh is liable to pay the charges. The court of Addl.Seesions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 25.7.2013 Ex.C3 did not quash the notice under section 135 of the Electricity Act nor quashed the recovery of aforesaid amount from Jaspal Singh the actual beneficiary of the electric connection where theft was deducted on 9.7.2011 at the time of checking by the staff of the OP. So, until and unless the aforesaid outstanding amount against that electric connection in the same house is not deposited with the OP, no new electric connection can be sanctioned/installed in the said premises as per rules and regulations of the OP. OPs submitted that OPs have rightly refused to install the new electric connection in the name of the complainant in the said premises.The learned counsel for the OPs submitted that under these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that against the premises where the complainant has been residing and applied for new electric connection, earlier there was case of theft of electricity registered against Kewal Singh father-in-law of the complainant i.e. FIR No.70 dated 31.7.2011 under section 135 of Electricity Act 2003 at PS Anti Power Theft, Jalandhar and that case was tried against Jaspal Singh husband of the complainant who was charged of committing theft of electricity on 9.7.2011 in the same premises. However, husband of the complainant Jaspal Singh was acquitted by the competent court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 25.7.2012 Ex.C3. Due to registration of aforesaid criminal case with FIR No.70 dated 31.7.2011 under section 135 of the Electricity Act and trial against husband of the complainant namely Jaspal Singh for theft of electricity in the same premises, the said electric connection which was in the name of Kewal Singh father of Jaspal Singh and father-in-law of present complaint was disconnected and notice under section 135 of the Electricity Act for recovery of amount Rs.24,394/- and Rs.48,234/- was issued. Complainant, thereafter, applied for new electric connection in the same premises vide application Ex.OP2 but that application was not admitted by the OP and was returned to the complainant with the report that Rs.24,394/- defaulting amount of theft of electricity is outstanding against the electric connection installed and later on disconnected in the same premises. Learned counsel for the OP submitted that Jaspal Singh husband of the complainant has been acquitted by the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 25.7.2012 Ex.C3 on technical ground but the court of Addl.Sessions Judge did not quash the recovery proceedings of the outstanding amount payable by Jaspal Singh beneficiary of the said electric connection and husband of the complainant in the same premises. So, no new electric connection can be issued to the complainant unless complainant deposits the outstanding amount payable by her husband or her father-in-law deceased Kewal Singh for the electric connection installed/ disconnected due to theft of electricity in those premises. Under these circumstances, the OP was justified in not sanctioning new electric connection as per rules, in the same premises where outstanding amount for use/misuse/ theft of electricity is pending. But the OP was not justified in straightway refusing to accept the application of the complainant because electricity is dire necessity these days. The OP can put riders for the installation of new electric connection in the same premises that the new applicant shall deposit all the outstanding amount payable for the use/misuse/theft of electricity in the same premises, as per rules of OP.

9. Resultantly, in the interest of justice, this complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainant that complainant shall apply for new electric connection on the prescribed form after completion of the formalities and the OP shall consider the application of the complainant for new electric connection, subject to deposit of outstanding amount for the use/misuse/theft of the electricity in the same premises as per rules and regulations of the OP within one from the date of receipt of application for new electric connection from the complainant. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

20.05.2016 Member President