Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/555

Jiwan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PunjabState Power Corpn.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhir Gupta

27 Jan 2015

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

CC No: 555 of 12.08.2014

                                                                     Date of Decision: 27.01.2015

 

Jiwan Kumar Aggarwal aged about 62 years s/o Sh.Jagan Nath Aggarwal, Street no.2, Ward no.2, Near Kundan Hospital, Ahmedgarh.

                                                                                      … Complainant

                                      Versus

1. P.S.P.C.L, through its Chairman/Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Engineer, City Sub-Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Ahmedgarh.

                                                                             … Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

 

Present:       Sh.Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.G.S.Pahwa, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   

                        ORDER

 

(S.P.GARG, MEMBER)

 

1.                 The present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Jiwan Kumar Aggarwal s/o Sh.Jagan Nath Aggarwal, Street no.2, Ward no.2, Near Kundan Hospital, Ahmedgarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘complainant’) against P.S.P.C.L, through its Chairman/Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala and others hereinafter to be referred as ‘OPs’)-directing them to quash the demand of Rs.36,300/- charged, through the column of sundry charges + Rs.3947/- being arrear of current year raised by the Ops, through the current consumption bill issued for the period 4/2014 and 5/2014 pertaining to the domestic electric connection of the complainant a/c no.GT-51/0195K. Further Ops be directed to refund the illegally recovered amount of Rs.41,133/- minus amount of current consumption charges, under the garb of theft of electric connection alongwith prevailing rate of interest and to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of harassment faced by the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is consumer of Electric connection account no.GT-51/195K (Domestic) since long and has been making the payment of each consumption bill regularly and nothing is/was due as payable to the OPs by the complainant. The wife of the complainant Viz. Smt. Kiran alongwith Smt.Ushal Rani wife of real brother of the complainant Viz Sh.Rakesh Kumar in the past purchased the property from one Smt.Tara Devi w/o Sh.Hanuman Singla vide vasika no.1258 dated 8.11.12 and at the time of purchase of the above said property nothing was due against that property to be payable to the PSPCL not the Ops ever claimed any amount as recoverable from this property and since the day of the purchase of the above said property the complainant is using the above said property. The complainant is also the consumer of electric connection account no.PF-53/302 NRS and since the day of purchase of this property, the complainant had been regularly making the payment of each consumption bill to the OPs in time and nothing is due towards complainant regarding consumption charges to this account. All of a sudden the PSPCL made demand of Rs.3947/- being balance of the previous year and Rs.36,300/- in the column of sundry charges in the consumption bill for the period 4/2014 and 5/2014 and after correction and after adding the current consumption charges, made the total demand of Rs.41,133/- in connection account no.GT-51/0195 K and threatened, in case, the said amount is not paid at its due date, the connection of complainant will be disconnected. Complainant in order to save his connection and keeping in view of the threat advanced by the OPs deposited the said demand of Rs.41,133/-, vide receipt no.37 dated 23.5.14 under compelling circumstances and under protest. The OPs even refused to give the further detail of the amount charged. Further alleged that through the RTI Act, the OPs vide their letter no.384 dated 12.6.14 intimated that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.15,261/- in connection Account no.PR-53/164 DS, which was running in the name of Smt.Jasmel Kaur, when in true position, there was nothing as recoverable from the connection account no.PR-53/0164 DS, which was running in the name of Smt.Jasmel Kaur at the time of purchase of that property by the wife of the complainant alongiwth another. Further alleged that similarly, vide the information supplied through the RTI, the Ops claimed Rs.21,039/- towards connection account no.PR-53/302, which is lying installed in the name of complainant Jeewan Kumar, when there is nothing due as recoverable from the complainant and all the consumption bills issued in connection with account no.PR-53/302 of the complainant stand paid by the complainant in time. Ops failed to intimate that to which period the claimed amount relates and how this huge amount has been accumulated in that account of the complainant. Further alleged that as per section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003:-

            “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 2 years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges from electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of electricity.”

 

                   Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs; electric connection bearing account no.PR-53/164-DS in the name of Smt.Jasmail Kaur was disconnected and at that time the defaulting amount of Rs.15,261/- was outstanding. In the same premises the electric connection bearing account no.PR-53/302 NRS was running in the name of complainant Jiwan Kumar. Sh.Jiwan Kumar included the portion of Smt.Jasmail Kaur in his premises after demolishing the intervening wall and the defaulting amount, which was outstanding charged to the complainant in his account no.PR-53/302. The bill amount of account no.PR-53/302 NRS was 21039 and after adding Rs.15,261/- the total amount payable by the complainant become Rs.36,300/-, which the complainant did not pay and the connection was permanently disconnected; complainant Jiwan Kumar is the holder of another electric connection bearing account no.GT-51/195 and the said amount of Rs.36,300/- was charged in his said account no.GT-51/195 and the complainant deposited the said amount on 23.05.14. On merits, denied the contents of all other paras being false stated that he purchased the adjoining property in the name of his wife and the amount of electric connection bearing account no.PR-53/164DS installed in the said premises was also charged in the account of the complainant bearing no.PR-53/302. Further averred that complainant has defaulted the amount of Rs.15,261/-.

4.                Ld. counsel for complainant has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant Jiwan Kumar Aggarwal Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OPs has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Er.Jatinder Kumar, Additional S.E. Ahmedgarh Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Ahmedgarh Ex.RW1/A, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and also placed on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8.

5.                Case was fixed for arguments. Ld. counsel for complainant argued orally that complainant is consumer of electric connection account no.GT-51/195K (Domestic) and has been making the payment of each consumption bill regularly. The wife of the complainant viz. Smt. Kiran alongwith Smt.Usha Rani wife of real brother of the complainant viz Sh.Rakesh Kumar purchased the property from one Smt.Tara Devi w/o Sh.Hanuman Singla, vide vasika no.1258 dated 8.11.12 and at the time of purchase of the above said property nothing was due against that property to be payable to the PSPCL. The complainant is also consumer of electric connection account no.PF-53/302 NRS and since the day of purchase of this property, the complainant had been regularly making the payment of each consumption bill to the OPs in time and nothing is due towards complainant. All of a sudden the PSPCL made demand of Rs.3947/- being balance of the previous year and Rs.36,300/- in the column of sundry charges in the consumption bill for the period 4/2014 and 5/2014 and after correction and after adding the current consumption charges, made the total demand of Rs.41,133/- in connection account no.GT-51/0195 K. Further argued that through the RTI Act, the OPs vide their letter no.384 dated 12.6.14 have intimated that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.15,261/- in connection Account no.PR-53/164 DS, which was running in the name of Smt.Jasmel Kaur, when in true position, there was nothing shown as recoverable as arrears from the connection account no.PR-53/0164 DS, which was running in the name of Smt.Jasmel Kaur at the time of purchase of that property by the wife of the complainant alongwith another. Further argued that that as per section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003:-

            “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 2 years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges from electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of electricity”

 

6.                Refuting the allegations leveled by the complainant, Ld. counsel for OPs filed written arguments averring that the complainant has two electric connections bearing nos.GT-51/195K and PR-53/302 in his name and in the name of his family members. Since the complainant purchased the adjoining property, where the connection was already running in the past in the name of some Jasmail Kaur, who was defaulter of amount of Rs.15,261/- of electric connection bearing account no.PR-53/164-DS in the name of Smt.Jasmail Kaur was disconnected and at that time the defaulting amount of Rs.15,261/- was outstanding in the same. In the same premises the electric connection bearing account no.PR-53/302 NRS was running in the name of complainant Jiwan Kumar. Sh.Jiwan Kumar included the portion of Smt.Jasmail Kaur in his premises after demolishing the intervening wall and the defaulting amount outstanding was charged to the complainant in his account no.PR-53/302. The bill amount of account no.PR-53/302 NRS was 21039 and after adding Rs.15,261/- the total amount payable by the complainant become Rs.36,300/-, which the complainant did not pay and the connection was permanently disconnected; complainant Jiwan Kumar is the holder of another electric connection bearing account no.GT-51/195 and the said amount of Rs.36,300/- was charged in his said account no.GT-51/195 and the complainant deposited the said amount on 23.05.14. Since the complainant has purchased the said land and as per clause 30.15, the complainant is liable to pay.

7.                We have gone through the pleading of the complainant as well as defence taken by the OPs and have also gone through the entire record placed on file.

8.                It is evident that complainant had two electric connections in his own premises bearing no. GT-51/195K and PR-53/302. However, he purchased the said property from one Smt.Tara Devi but not from Jasmail Kaur. In this way, there is no mention of Jasmail Kaur in the sale deed at any point of time and what was her status qua this land has not clarified. Moreover the land was purchased after the verification of the revenue record and said type of dues are not reflected in revenue record. Further more complainant has not applied for new connection at the said premises. Further Ld. counsel for complainant has relied upon the judgement passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as PSEB Vs Gurjit Kaur-CPJ-II (2004) 470, wherein it was held that “Consumer Protection Act 1986- Demand related to other connection added in the complainant’s account – Amount outstanding against one connection cannot be added in the bill of other connection. Demand related to the other connection added wrongly in complainant’s account. OPs liable to withdraw disputed demand- Cost awarded.”

9.                In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and payment of Rs.15,261/- and Rs.3947/- is quashed. Further OPs are directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                   (S.P.Garg)                                         (R.L.Ahuja)

                     Member                                             President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:27.01.2015 

Hardeep Singh