Punjab

Moga

CC/16/105

Ramandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Satvir Singh Gill

21 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                                                                      CC No. 105 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 06.06.2016

                                                                                      Decided on: 21.09.2016

 

Ramandeep Singh, aged about 30 years son of Onkar Singh son of Harchand Singh, resident of Ward No.50, Baja Patti, VPO Lande Ke, Tehsil and District Moga.

                                                                          ……… Complainant

Versus

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

 

2.       Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Sub Urban Division Moga, District Moga.

 

3.       Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, North Sub Division, Moga, District Moga.  

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Satvir Singh Gill, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. S.K. Dhir, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation and to pay Rs.11,000/- on account of expenses/charges/counsel fee to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is using Domestic electric connection bearing account no.3002431953 (consumer no.F54LF710066X) in the name of his paternal uncle namely Pardumman Singh son of Harchand Singh, resident of Lande Ke, District Moga. The said Pardaman Singh had already been died and complainant is using the said electric connection since long, so the present complaint is being filed by the complainant on his own name. The complainant has continuously been paying the consumption charges to the opposite parties as and when due, vide different bills. Finally the complainant had mad a payment of Rs.6600/- on 30.03.2016 through online basis and as such nothing was due against the complainant against the said electric connection. Despite having paid all the dues/consumption charges to opposite parties, the employee of opposite parties had disconnected the connection of the complainant to his utmost dismay and surprise on 23.04.2016. The above said act of the opposite parties is against its own rule and regulation, because as per rules and regulations of opposite parties before disconnecting the electric connection issuance of the notice mentioning full details/reasons of the same is very essential, but in the present case the opposite parties had failed to issue any such notice, moreover the opposite parties have also failed to disclose the reason/ground regarding disconnecting the said electric connection. Due to disconnection of electricity, the complainant had to spend four nights and three days in dark without any electricity. However, the electric connection was re-connected in the evening of 26.04.2016, after continuous oral and written representations made by the complainant. Due to the overt act of opposite parties, the complainant had to undergo miserable time and had to suffer great mental and physical agony and tension during these 4 days, because it is peak summer time. The complainant had also got issued a legal notice upon opposite parties on 28.04.2016, through registered notice, but instead of admitting the claim of the complainant, the opposite parties had sent two replies i.e. dated 03.05.2016 and 17.05.2016 to the complainant, in which, they had also failed to disclose the reason of disconnecting the said connection. It is further alleged that after receiving reply dated 17.05.2016, the complainant has received a bill dated 19.05.2016 issued by the opposite parties regarding electric connection in question in which the opposite parties had categorically mentioned that no amount is due towards the complainant. The said act of the opposite parties is arbitrary, illegal and is gross violation of rules and regulations. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties; that no cause of action arose to the complainant against the opposite parties; that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted upto the extent that the electric connection in dispute is in the name of Pardaman Singh. However, the complainant has no concern with the electric connection in dispute. Further submitted that the complainant has never made any payment of Rs.6600/- to the opposite parties through online. Whichever payment made by the complainant through online, the transaction number was generated on the receipt. But the receipt produced by the complainant has no transaction ID number. Thus, no online payment was made by the complainant to the opposite party corporation. The demand of the opposite parties is legal one and complainant is liable to pay the amount in dispute. The opposite party corporation has legal right to disconnect the electric connection on account of non payment of the bill. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with special costs. The complainant has not paid the amount in dispute. The all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with special costs has been made.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant Ramandeep Singh tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-19 and closed the evidence. 

5.                In rebuttal, opposite parties tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Rahul Kumar, S.D.O. Ex.OPs-1 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                Learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant is using the domestic electric connection at this residence which is in the name of his paternal uncle namely Pardaman Singh, who had already died and complainant is using the said connection since long and regularly paying the consumption charges to opposite parties as and when he received the bills. Finally he had made a payment of Rs.6600/-on 30.03.2016 through online as consumption charges for the said connection and nothing was due towards him. But despite this fact the employee of opposite party nos.1 & 2 had disconnected the connection of the complainant on 23.04.2016 without giving any reason or prior notice. This act is against the rules and regulations of PSPC Ltd. As per rules and regulations before disconnecting the electric connection prior notice mentioning every detail and reason is to be served to the consumer, but in the present case, the opposite parties has failed to issue any notice and also failed to disclose the reason for disconnecting the electric connection. This act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant immediately contacted opposite parties and made oral as well as written representations to the officials of the opposite parties submitting that there is nothing due towards him and requested them to reconnect the his electric connection and on his request his electric connection was reconnected in the evening of 26.04.2016. In this way, the complainant and his family had to spend four nights and three days in dark without any electricity. Opposite parties was also served with a legal notice dated 28.04.2016, but instead of admitting the claim of the complainant, the opposite parties had sent two replies dated 03.05.2016 and 17.05.2016 to the complainant, vide this replies they also failed to disclose the reason for disconnecting the electric connection. Copy of the receipt dated 30.03.2016 is Ex.C-3, copy of the legal notice dated 28.04.2016 is Ex.C-8, copy of the replies of opposite parties dated 03.05.2016 and dated 17.05.2016 to the legal notice is Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14 respectively. Due to these acts of the opposite parties, the complainant and his family member had to undergo miserable time and had to suffer great mental and physical agony and tension. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to get compensation for deficiency in service of the opposite parties. He prayed that the present complaint may be allowed and opposite parties may be directed to pay compensation.

8.                To controvert the arguments of complainant, learned counsel for opposite parties argued that the present complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties; that no cause of action arose to the complainant against the opposite parties and the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. The electric connection in dispute is in the name of Pardaman Singh and the complainant has nothing to do with this electric connection. He is not a consumer of opposite parties and he has no right to file the present complaint. However, the complainant has never made any payment of Rs.6600/- online as alleged by him. Whichever payment made by the consumer through online, the transaction number was generated on the receipt. However, there is no transaction ID number generated on the receipt produced by the complainant. The complainant has not made any payment online and the demand of opposite parties is legal one and complainant is liable to pay the amount in dispute. Due to non-payment of consumption charges, the opposite parties have every right to disconnect the electric connection. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has not suffered any mental and physical agony and mental tension. The opposite parties duly replied the notice of complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has filed this false, frivolous and baseless complaint and the same deserves dismissal.

9.                We have thoroughly gone through the file, evidence and arguments led by learned counsel for both the parties. The case of the complainant is that there was a electric connection installed by the opposite parties in his residence in the name of Pardaman Singh his Paternal uncle and he is using the said electric connection by paying the electric consumption charges. Lastly he had paid a bill of Rs.6600/- online to opposite parties on 30.03.2016 and nothing was due towards him, but despite this fact, the employee of opposite parties disconnection his electric connection on 23.04.2016 without disclosing any reason and on his repeated requests only on 26.04.2016 they re-connected his electric connection and due to this the complainant and his family members had suffered great mental tension and agony. In reply, opposite parties submitted that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties and he has no right to file the present complaint. They denied that the complainant ever made any payment of Rs.6600/- on 30.03.2016 through online and this amount was due towards the complainant as consumption charges. So, the employee of opposite parties rightly disconnected the connection of the complainant and the opposite parties have every right to recover this amount from the complainant. First objection of the opposite parties is that the complainant is not their consumer, as the connection in dispute is in the name of Pardaman Singh and the complainant never applied for the change of this electric connection in his name and this connection is running in the name of said Pardaman Singh and the complainant cannot file the present complaint as per law. On it, learned counsel for complainant put reliance on the citation 1999 (2) CLT 134, titled as Joginder Singh Versus Punjab State Electriciy Board and others passed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, wherein it has been held that not only the actual person, who had hired the services of the opposite party, is to be consumer entitled to claim relief under the Consumer Protection Act, but also a beneficiary of such a contract of hiring services of the opposite party. In the present case also, the complainant is using the electricity from the electric connection in question being its beneficial user. Therefore, the complainant falls within the definition of consumer, as provided under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.          The opposite parties admitted that they disconnected the electric connection in dispute of the complainant. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant has not deposited his electric consumption dues, so they rightly disconnected his electric connection, whereas the complainant submitted that he paid all the dues of bill and made payment of last bill on 30.03.2016 online, but opposite parties denied that the complainant ever made this payment online. On the other hand, the complainant submitted that he issued a legal notice dated 28.04.2016 to opposite parties directing them to admit their fault for wrongly disconnecting his electric connection and to pay compensation to him. In reply to that notice, opposite parties issued two replies dated 03.05.2016 and 17.05.2016, whereas they submitted that the complainant paid his bill of Rs.6600/- online and he produced the receipt regarding this payment, but this receipt is not updated in their record and this is still pending in the record of opposite parties. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that admittedly he made the payment of bill online and now it is the duty of opposite parties to update their record and to correct their account. If the opposite parties failed to update their account and to acknowledge the payment made by the complainant through online then it is not the fault of the complainant, rather it is fault of the opposite parties. The complainant has to suffer a lot due to the mistake of the opposite parties. Moreover, in his next bill no default amount is shown. He also produced the copy of statement of account regarding his electric connection of PSPC Ltd. as Ex.C-19, wherein on 30.03.2016 a sum of Rs.6600/- is shown as credited in his account. Now, the opposite parties cannot deny that the complainant did not make payment of this amount with them. Moreover, as per their own regulations of PSPC Ltd. before disconnecting any connection in any circumstances including on account defaulter of consumption charges, they have to issue prior notice calling the consumer to deposit the defaulting amount within a stipulated time and in case of failure they have to issue temporary disconnection order and after that permanent disconnection order is to be issued. But in the present case, the opposite parties have not issue any prior notice to complainant before disconnection of his electric connection. All these acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.

10.              In view of the above discussion, the present complaint in hand is allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as compensation to complainant for mental tension, inconvenience and agony suffered by him, due to disconnection of his electric connection wrongly by them. They are further directed to pay Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expense. Compliance of this order be made within one month of date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings against opposite parties under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 21.09.2016.

 

                                                  (Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                       Member                                           President