DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  86

                                                Instituted on:    06.03.2017

                                                Decided on:       04.07.2017

Shaheena Parveen wife of Mohammad Rafi son of Mohammad Shamim, resident of Balal Colony, Near Balal Maszid, Naudharani Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,  The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary.

2.     AEE, SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, City-I, Satta Bazar, Malerkotla.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Smt. Shaheena Parveen, 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 in the year 2012 the complainant obtained one electricity connection from the Ops bearing account number L32NR820299H with a sanctioned load of 1.00 KW and has been paying the bills regularly.  The grievance of the complainant is that on 2.3.2017 the complainant received a letter number 135 dated 1.3.2017 whereby the Ops demanded an amount of Rs.17,850/- which were due against the previous meter number 82/42, failing which to face disconnection of the electricity connection.  It is further averred that in the month of April/May, 2013, one meter which was in the name of the mother of the complainant was removed by the Ops against the procedure of the OPs. In the last, it has been averred that the demand of Rs.17,850/- allegedly outstanding against connection number 82/42 is said to be wrong and illegal. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.17,850/- raised vide notice number 135 dated 1.3.2017 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs vide connection number 82/299. It has been averred that the notice dated 1.3.2017 has rightly been issued to the complainant demanding an amount of Rs.17,850/- as the same relates to account number 82/42 which was running in the name of mother of the complainant, Smt. Zarina Behgum as the disputed amount has been divided and the amount of Rs.17,850/- has rightly been demanded from the complainant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 affidavits and documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-14 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the 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 an admitted fact between the complainant and the Ops that the complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection bearing account number L32NR820299H with a sanctioned load of 1.00 KW.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the OPs have raised an illegal demand of Rs.17,850/- against the complainant vide notice number 135 dated 1.3.2017 on the ground that the amount of Rs.53,419/- was due towards the connection number 82/42 belonging to the mother of the complainant as the same amount was earlier charged under the account number 82/42 in the year 2013 and thereafter the said amount has been charged in the year 2017 by dividing the same into three accounts.  Ex.C-2 is the copy of the disputed notice dated 1.3.2017 whereby the Ops have raised the demand of Rs.17,850/- on account of previous dues of account number NR82/42.  A bare perusal of the complaint as well as written reply and documents produced on record show that the connection number NR82/42 was in the name of the mother of the complainant, Smt. Zarina Begum, who has died since long and the amount of Rs.53419/- is due towards her, which was not earlier charged by the OPs and the same has been charged only in the year 2017. There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the said amount due against connection number NR82/42 was not charged earlier. It seems that the demand is more than two years old, which cannot be legally charged after a period of two years and the same  is a clear cut violation of the own memo of the OPs issued by Er. In Chief/Commercial, PSEB, Patiala vide memo number 3941/4555/DB-100/L dated 12.01.2007 regarding recovery of arrears regarding statutory requirement of ACT-2003.  The relevant portion of the memo is reproduced below:-

“…. As per Electricity Act, 2003 under section 56(2) no sum 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 licensee shall not cut off the supply of electricity….”

6.             We further perused section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is also reproduced below:-

“(2)  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 licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the demand of Rs.17,850/- raised vide notice number 135 dated 1.03.2017.  The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant an  amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.    This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        July 4, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

                                                       (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                  Member