Punjab

Sangrur

CC/609/2017

Randhir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.G.S.Nandpuri

13 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                        

                                                Complaint No.    609

                                                Instituted on:      20.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       13.03.2018

 

Randhir Singh son of Late Sh. Teja Singh, resident of Village Sakrodi, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its CMD.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer (SDO) PSPC Ltd. Sub Division, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Advocate.

For Opposite parties   :       Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Randhir Singh, 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 S41VK580012N, which was obtained by his late father Shri Teja Singh, who has since and as such, the complainant being a beneficiary has been using the connection in question. The complainant is aggrieved on receiving illegal and wrong bill number 8146 dated 10.11.2017  wherein an amount of Rs.2,50,561/- has been demanded on account of sundry charges without issuing any prior notice before raising such a huge demand. Further case of the complainant is that though he approached the OPs for withdrawal of the said demand, 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 said illegal demand of Rs.2,50,561/- raised through bill dated 10.11.2017 and further to pay compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is false and frivolous one, which should be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that the connection in question is running in the name of Teja Singh, but remaining allegations are denied.  Further case of the OPs is that the demand of Rs.2,50,561/- has rightly been raised against the OPs on account of sundry charges in the bill dated 10.11.2017.  Further it is stated that Parminder Singh son of the complainant had obtained one SP connection bearing account number SP-43/413 and the said connection was checked by the officials of the OPs and found use of unauthorised electricity by the said Parminder Singh, as such notice number 817 dated 1.4.2013 under section 126 of the Electricity Act was issued whereby demand of Rs.3,27,233/- was raised against him.  Further it is stated that the said Parminder Singh filed appeal against the said notice before ADC Sangrur and deposited 50% of the amount, however appeal of Parminder Singh was dismissed vide order dated 18.2.2015 and the said connection of the Parminder Singh was permanently disconnected for want of deposit of the remaining amount of Rs.1,63,233/-.  As such, it is stated that thereafter it was found that the said Parminder Singh is residing with his father (complainant Randhir Singh) as such, the demand was rightly inserted in the account of the complainant being Rs.1,63,233/- as outstanding amount plus Rs.87,238/- as interest.  As such, the demand is said to be totally legal and justified. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 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-11 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 as he has been using the connection in question being the legal heir of Teja Singh, as the said connection number S41VK580012N was obtained by him during his life time, who has now died and the complainant being the beneficiary has been using the said connection and as such is a consumer of the Ops and his complaint is fully maintainable.

 

6.             The complainant is aggrieved from the OPs as the Ops have raised a demand of Rs.2,50,561/- in his current consumption bill dated 10.11.2017 without any reason, as he never used the electricity to such an extent, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further vehemently contended that after receipt of the bill dated 10.11.2017, 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/bill.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the said demand of Rs.2,50,561/- has rightly been raised against the complainant as his son Parminder Singh was a defaulter of the said amount and after it was found that the complainant and the said Parminder Singh are living together, as such the demand was inserted in the bill of the complainant. 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 Parminder Singh are residing together.  Moreover, it is settled law that the demand of a consumer cannot be claimed from another consumer.  It is not fair on the part of the OPs to claim the demand of Rs.2,50,561/- from the complainant, whereas the Ops did nothing to recover the demand of Rs.2,50,561/- from the alleged defaulter Shri Parminder Singh.  It is worth mentioning here that the OPs before including such a demand of Rs.2,50,561/- in the bill dated 10.11.2017 of the complainant, no separate notice has been issued to the complainant providing complete details of the demand.  If it is assumed as per the version of the Ops that the ADC Arvind Kumar dismissed the appeal of the said Parminder Singh vide his order dated 18.2.2015, then the demand seems to be time barred, as the OPs are entitled to recover the demand from the complainant within the period of two years as provided in Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the license shall not cut off the supply of the electricity”.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops have miserably failed to prove on record that the amount of Rs.2,50,561/- is due against the complainant and the Ops have illegally inserted an amount of Rs.2,50,561/- in the current consumption bill dated 10.11.2017 of the complainant, and by inserting/raising such a demand against the complainant the OPs are deficient in rendering service towards the complainant/consumer. 

 

7.             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.2,50,561/- raised through bill dated 10.11.2017, Ex.C-3. 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.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

8.             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.

                        March 13, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                                       

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member