| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR. Complaint No. 19 of 2020 Date of Institution. 20.01.2020 Date of Decision: 09.03.2021 Smt. Surjit Kaur aged 61 years W/o Malkit Singh Resident of Village Maida, Tehsil Shahkot and District Jalandhar. ..........Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Malsiya, District Jalandhar, through The Sub Divisional Engineer/ Officer cum AEE.
The Sub Divisional Engineer/Officer cum AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Malsiya, District Jalandhar,
The Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala.
….….. Opposite Parties Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act. Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh, President Smt. Jyotsna, Member COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: For Complainant : Sh. Vikash Sharma, Advocate For OPs : Sh. K. L. Dua, Advocate Order Kuljit Singh, President The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein complainant averred that her son namely Amritpal Singh has applied for an electric domestic connection with OPs and has also deposited requisite fee of Rs.4755/- vide receipt dated 20.06.2019 for installation of electric connection in the house of applicant situated at Village Maida District Jalandhar and after verification an electric domestic connection bearing account No.X45EH351051A was installed in the house of complainant. Since, the complainant is residing with her son Amritpal Singh and totally dependent upon him as she is also beneficiary of same but since her son has gone to abroad to earn his livelihood as such, the present complaint is being filed through complainant and presently using said electric connection. In the month of September, one person of village namely Jaswinder Singh having personal grudge with the family of complainant had moved false and frivolous application to Ops with a motive to get the said electric connection of complainant be disconnected and OPs without application of mind, without enquiry, without notice and without any order from any court of law acted according to the ill wish and desire of said Jaswinder Singh has forcibly disconnected the said electric connection of complainant on 24.02.2019 and also removed the electric meter of complainant. After said illegal disconnection, complainant immediately approached to OPs and requested them to restore said connection but Ops refused to restore the same. As such, she moved an application under RTI act to get copies of said documents and it is only then the said documents supplied on 14.11.2019, but there was no order of any competent court of law to disconnect said connection. The complainant came to know from said supplied documents by OPs that there is dispute between Jaswinder Singh, Santokh Singh and his brothers qua some properties situated in area of Village Maida, which is pending but the complainant neither a party to said civil suit nor she is having any concern with the same. Despite repeated requests of complainant, legal notice dated 21.11.2019, receipt of legal notice acknowledgment dated 25.11.2019, OPs not restored the said connection. Complainant is quite astonished to know that OPs inspite of disconnection of electric connection and removal of meter on 24.09.2019 are still issuing bill dated 18.12.2019 showing consumption of electricity w.e.f. 12.10.2019 to 18.12.2019. Lastly, prayer has been made by complainant that Ops be directed to restore electric connection of complainant. To pay Rs.5 Lakh as compensation for harassment and to pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complainant is not consumer of OPs; complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action arisen to complainant; Amrit Pal Singh applied to take connection in the premises and deposited Rs.4755/- on 20.06.2019 and appended an agreement to sell with the said application. On the basis of same the connection was released in the name of Amritpal Singh. Thereafter Amritpal Singh also merged his house with house of Laxman Singh, where the connection was in the name of Laxman Singh and where the defaulting amount of Rs.18480/- was outstanding, and the meter was disconnected in the name of Laxman Singh due to non-payment of defaulting amount in said premises. Amritpal Singh also gave supply to the premises of Laxman Singh, from where the electricity was disconnected and meter was removed due to defaulting amount. It is unauthorized use of electricity. As per rules and regulation of Ops, no second domestic connection can be installed where there is already one domestic connection in the premises. Complaint is misuse of process of this Commission; Surjit Kaur is neither attorney of Amritpal Singh nor she has been authorized to file this complaint; complaint liable to be dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-. On merits, It is admitted that complaint is senior citizen; it is admitted that son of complainant applied for electricity connection and deposit fee of Rs.4755/-. No electricity connection was applied by Amritpal Singh, in the house of complainant situated at Village Maida District Jalandhar. It is admitted that domestic connection was installed in the house of Amrit Pal Singh in his name and not in the name of complainant as alleged. It is denied that complainant is residing with her son Amrit Pal Singh and totally dependent upon him. As per complainant Amritpal Singh is residing abroad, then how she can live with him in India, in the house in question. It is denied that complainant is beneficiary of Amritpal Singh. Complainant has no authority or power of attorney to file the present complaint on behalf of his son Amritpal Singh. It is admitted that one person of Village Jaswinder Singh moved a complaint to OPs. It is submitted that one electric connection was installed in the house in the name of Laxman Singh for last about 25 years. Amritpal Singh supplied the copy of an agreement to sell. The connection was installed in the name of Amritpal Singh. The complaint was filed by Jaswinder Singh, whereby he has submitted that Amritpal Singh, with malafide intention got removed the connection and meter installed in the name of Laxman Singh in the their house and got new connection installed in his name. The mater was inquired by SDO, PSPCL Malsiya and JE of the area and it revealed that house where Amritpal Singh was residing, was his ancestral premises and electric meter was installed there in the name of Laxman Singh son of Bhan Singh and Amritpal Singh used to make the payment of this bill. Thereafter, he stopped the payment and sum of Rs.18480/- was outstanding in respect of premises where the connection in the name of Laxman Singh was installed. Amritpal Singh was now using electricity installed in his name in Haveli/Ancestral property over which the defaulting amount of Rs.18,480/- was there in respect of Laxman Singh. Amritpal Singh was asked to deposit defaulting amount of Rs.18,480/- but on his refusal to deposit the defaulting amount connection in his name was disconnected for two counts i.e. non payment of defaulting amount and using electricity from new connection in respect of premises where the defaulting amount was outstanding. Defaulting amount is to be paid first and only then the connection can be restored. The enquiry was conducted by SDO and JR with regard to unauthorized use of electricity. No order is required from any court of law. It is mentioned on each and every bill, that the connection is liable to be disconnected if the payment of same is not made within 21 days. Otherwise also as per rules and regulations of Power Corporation, if the terms and conditions are not followed, then electricity is not used for the purpose for which the connection is liable to be disconnected. So connection rightly disconnected. There is no connivance with Jaswinder Singh as alleged. It is admitted that complainant approached to OPs on 15.10.2019, RTI also admitted. Ops have nothing to do with the dispute of Jaswinder Singh, Santokh Singh and his brother qua some properties and pending of civil litigation. Service of legal notice admitted. It is admitted that bill was issued dated 18.12.2019. But the same is of minus amount. No excess amount has been deposited by complainant. Other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. In order to prove their respective version, the counsel for the parties produced on the file his respective evidence. We have heard the arguments of the parties and also gone through case file carefully. Before going into the merits of the case, we would like to observe here that electric connection in dispute does not stand in the name of the complainant.
Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is consumer of the OPs or not. It is held by our own Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in 2006 (2)CPC titled as Sat Pal Versus PSEB through its Secretary reproduced as under: xx xx xx “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (d) (i) – Consumer – Beneficiary – It is settled that a person who is staying in a house as a actual user of electricity would be a consumer being a beneficiary – In the present case electricity connection was in the name of the father of the complainant – A demand of Rs.12,370 was raised against complainant by PSEB against which District Forum was approached for necessary relief – Order of the Forum holding that complainant is not a consumer cannot be sustained – A beneficiary is also a consumer as defined in C.P. Act – Order set aside – Case remanded for fresh decision on merits. xx xx xx Further it is held in II (1998) CPJ 210 titled as P.K. Malhan Versus SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board reproduced as under:- xx xx xx “(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (d)) – Consumer – Beneficiary – Electricity – Complainant using electricity – Electricity connection in another’s name – Whether complainant is consumer being beneficiary ? (Yes).” xx xx xx In view of the above said legal position, the present complainant is a consumer of the OPs, hence the complaint is maintainable. From the record of Ex.OP-8, it found that electric meter was applied installation at Village Maida. Moreover, it is also revealed for receipt Ex.OP-1 that said payment received from Amritpal Singh of Village Maida. Further, as per GPA dated 04.02.2020, the complainant is authorized representative of Amritpal Singh. The house of the Amritpal Sigh and Laxman Singh are separate from each other. It is argued that OPs have right to disconnect the connection of Laxman Singh on account of his non-payment but they have no right to disconnect the electric connection installed in the name of Amritpal Singh and also using by complainant. Alleged rules and regulation are not related to present case as the premises of complainant is separate from Laxman Singh. It is argued that Amritpal Singh earlier gone to abroad on visitor visa only and has now come back to India and has also given General Power of attorney. It is denied by complainant that any enquiry was alleged made by SDO and JE as alleged whereas nobody has ever visited the spot nor complainant and her son were ever called upon by SDO or JE to seek any information or explanation in this regard rather everything has been done illegally. Further, from the perusal reading of agreement it transpired that nowhere it is mentioned that Amritpal Singh has to pay the previous electricity charges qua Laxman Singh. But instead of disconnecting electricity connection, the Ops have disconnected connection of Amritpal Singh. From perusal of above said admission of OPs, it is clear that deficiency in service and unfair trade practice attributed on the part of OPs. OPs are adamant to charge/recover the said amount from the consumer account of Amripal Singh instead of Laxman Singh, which is against rules and regulations and natural justice. Further, the Ops have failed to produce on record qua said inspection by SDO and JE concerned. As such, an adverse inference drawn against Ops and the OPs are liable for the relief claimed as prayed by complainant in this complaint. Further, we place reliance on order dated 22.01.2018 passed Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in W.P.(C) 9671/2015, CM No. 23085/2015 titled as TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED V/s NEERAJ GULATI whereby it is observed that ……….if there are electricity dues against previous owner or occupants of the premises who transfers the premises to a new owner or occupant, the new owner or occupant applying for a fresh electricity connection can be compelled by the distribution company to pay the arrears of electricity dues of the previous owner or occupant and the distribution company can refuse to supply electricity to the premises on account of such non payment………..” In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, and judgment (Supra), we partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and set aside the demand raised qua Amritpal Singh and OPs are directed to immediately restore electric connection which is installed in the name of Amripal Singh at the requisite premises. Further, the OPs are directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation to complainant. The OPs have no right to keep and misappropriate the public money. It must go back to the public. We, therefore, order that the OPs will deposit a sum of Rs.2000/-, the estimate rough amount, with the legal aid account of this Commission. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with restoration order immediately and remaining directions within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced in open Commission 9th of March 2021 Kuljit Singh (President) Jyotsna (Member) | |
