Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

RBT/CC/1167/2018

Ajay Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjba State Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shalinder Mohan Goyal

21 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB.                                                            

RBT No.	:	CC/1167/2018
Consumer  Complaint No.	:	RBT/CC/1167/2018
Date of Institution	:	13.11.2018
Date of Decision	:	21.03.2023

 

1. Ajay Singh son of Surjeet Singh
2. Surjeet Singh son of Amar Singh
3. Sarita Devi wife of Surjeet Singh son of Amar Singh, all resident of Flat no.53-C, 3^rd Floor, Shree Devaji Residency, Kishanpura, Zirakpur

                                                                                                                     …………....Complainants

                                                Versus

1.  Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/ Secretary.
2. AEE, SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, 66 KV Grid, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.

                                                                              ..………....... Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986(Old)

Quorum

Sh. Satish Kumar Aggarwal, President

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

Present   Sh.Shalinder Mohan Goyal, counsel for complainant (through VC).

     Sh.Himanshu Bansal, counsel for OPs(through VC)

 

Order By

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, MEMBER

 The  complaint has been filed by the complainants  against the OPs (opposite parties),  Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986(old) alleging deficiency in service with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to withdraw  the illegal bill dated 12.09.2018 vide which Rs.33,048/- has been demanded on account of sundry charges and to pay Rs.60,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

1. The brief facts of the complaint are that both  the complainants had purchased the said flat on  8.5.2017. The complainant no.1 obtained electric connection from the OPs and account number of electric connection was  Z74BS227234A with sanctioned load of 4.98 KW bearing meter no.2011371 and the same was installed in the premises of the complainants at the above said  address. After that the  complainants have been using the above said  connection and paying the bills issued by the OPs. To the surprise of the complainants, the complainants received a bill dated 12.09.2018 for the  period from 20.07.2018 to 12.09.2018 for Rs.33,240/- out of which Rs.33,048/- were demanded on account of  “sundry Charges”.  They immediately approached the OP no.2 to withdraw the amount of Rs.33,048/- demanded on account of sundry charges, but the OP no.2 refused to withdraw the same and also refused to tell the detail of account on which such a huge amount had been imposed on account of sundry charges. The above said meter of the complainant was OK and in  the bills issued by the OPs the condition of the meter was “O” which means  that meter was correct one.  The above said meter was neither checked by any Laboratory nor the complainants ever authorized any person to sign any document on their  behalf.  The above said meter was neither got checked from any M.E Lab nor any notice was received by the complainants regarding any checking of meter in M.E lab by the OPs.  Bill dated 12.9.2018 issued by the OPs is wrong and is illegal. The complainants requested the OPs to withdraw the same but OPs refused to withdraw the same, hence this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs through registered Post, OPs appeared through their Counsel  and filed  written version.
3.        The complaint has been contested by the OPs, who filed written version ,raised preliminary objections, that the present complaint is not maintainable. This Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. The complainants have no legal right or cause of action  to file the present complaint and present complaint is misuse of process of law. The complainants are stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint, as he has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission and has not come with clean hands to the Commission.  The complainants contested on merit that  the electric connection bearing account no.Z74BS227234A with load of Rs.4.98 KW bearing meter no.2011371 was issued. The complainants were sent a bill dated 12.09.2018 for Rs.33,240 out of which Rs.33,048/- were demanded on account of Sundry Charges.  Previously an electric connection bearing no.T3765 was running in the same premises in the name of Ravi Kumar son of Diwan Chand and Rs.99161/- were standing as arrear against the said connection/premises and  said premises were sold in three portions out of which complainants had purchased one and consequently complainants are liable to pay  one third of the said amount.  The allegation to the effect, that the OPs without assigning any reason sent bill amounting to Rs.33,240/- dated 12.9.2018 to the complainant in which a sum of Rs.33048/- had been added alleging as “sundry Charges” as arrears towards the said complainant/premises against the temporary connection existing before the complainants bought the one third part from the earlier owner Ravi Kumar.  The Rs.33048/- is due towards the complainant/premises, where the present meter of the complainants  is installed, so the complainants are liable to pay the arrears.  The sundry charges are correctly added in the bill and the bill dated 12.09.2018 is true and correct and the complainant s are liable to pay the same. The OPs prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. The complainants in support of their complaint tender in evidence their  affidavit Ex.C1 and  documents i.e bills dated 12.9.2018 of Rs.33048/-  EX.C2 and bill dated 20.7.2018 Ex.C3, receipt dated 29.07.2018 Ex.C4, receipt dated 03.06.2018 Ex.C5,  Sale deed Ex.C6.  In rebuttal the OPs tendered affidavit of Er. Gaurav Kamboj AEE Sub-Division PSPCL Dhakoli, Zirakpur along with documents i.e agreement Ex.R1 , Supply code  Ex.R2 and closed their evidence.
5.                  We have perused the complaint  and heard counsel for complainant and gone through the file. The position emerges as under :-

            The complainantshave enclosed Ex.C2, whichis electricity billof his connectionbearing account no.Z74BS227234A dated 12.9.2018, in which sundry charges Rs.33,048/- have been added making the gross amount of the bill as Rs.33,240/-. Ex.C3 is electricity bill of the same connection dated 20/7/2018, whichisfor Rs.1870/-. Payment receiptdated 29.07.2018 Ex.C4. Similarly Ex.C5 is payment receipt dated 03.06.2018, which is for Rs.541/- As per Ex.C6, the complainants purchasedresidential accommodation from Sh. Ravi Kumaron 8.5.2017. The complainants have prayed that illegal bill dated 12.9.2018 vide which Rs.33048/- has been demanded as sundry charges may be withdrawn. Further the complainants have prayed for compensation for mentalagony and physical harassment as Rs.60,000/-andin addition as Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses. The OPs have mentioned thatpreviously temporary electricity connection bearing no.T3765 was runningin the same premises in the name ofRavi Kumarson of Diwan Chandand Rs.99161/- were standingas arrear of said connection/premises. The premises was sold in 3 portion out of which the complainant has purchased one andthat consequently the complainants are liable to pay 1/3^rd amount. On that basis an amount of Rs.33,040/- were added as sundry charges in the electricity bill dated 12.9.2018. The OPs have enclosed Ex.R1, which is copy of application and agreement(A&A Form), which is signed and submitted by theapplicants at the time of applying of electricity connection. The relevant part of A&A form, has been highlighted as under:-

Agree to keep the PSPCL indemnified and harmless against all claims madeand actionand proceedings taken up by the owner of the premises or any person claiming through or under him byreason of giving of this electric connection by the PSPCL to me/us

Further OPshave proved Ex.R2, which iscopy of Supply Code. This supply code was notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commissionon5.11.2014 and publishedinGovt. of Punjab Gazette on 5 November 2014 . Relevantpart of the Supply Code has been highlighted under Clause30.15, which is as under:-

     In case of transfer of property by sale/inheritance, the purchaser/heir shall be liable to pay all charges due with respect to such property and found subsequently recoverable from the consumer.

6.             The complainants  had purchased the residential accommodation from Ravi Kumar  son of Diwan Chand and as per the supply code clause  30.15, the OPs have charged 1/3^rd of the outstanding  amount of Ravi Kumar i.e Rs.33048/-  as sundry charges in the electricity bill dated 12.9.2018.
7.            In the written arguments  submitted by the complainants, Order dated 7.12.2018 of Hon’ble  Punjab and  Haryana High Court in  RSA-6492-2018 (O&M) decided on 7.12.2018 titled as UHBVNL and others Vs. Anil Kumar has been cited and is reproduced as under:-

In view of the above as also as per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 whichprovides that no arrears can be recovered fromany consumerafter a period of two years if they are not continuously shown in his bills as arrears due from him, nointerference is warranted in the concurrentfindings arrived at by both the Trail Court as also the Appellate Court. No questionof law much less any substantial question of law is also found to arise in the present appeal. Dismissed.

The order by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission titled as Uhbvnl Vs Sukhdev Singh decided on 9 February,2018, has also been citied wherein given Section 56(2) of Electricity Act 2003, has been mentioned as under:-

    “(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under thissection shall be recoverable after theperiodof two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable asarrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity’

However, the sundry chargesof Rs.33048 were added by the OPs in electricity bill of the complainant on the basis of outstanding amount of electricity connection bearing account no.T3765,which was running in the name of Ravi Kumar Son of Diwan Chand.Outstandingamount of the earlier connectionbearing account no.T3765 became due towards thenew connection on the date it was released/availed by the complainants in the same premises, which was charged by the OPs, keeping in views the provision of supply code Clause 30.15.

8.     The date of release of connection of the complainants  is 3.8.2017 as per document received from AEE Commercial  Sub Division PSPCL Zirakpur. The outstanding amount of previous owner Ravi Kumar becomes due towards the connection of the complainants on  the date of release of their connection i.e 3.8.2017. The outstanding amount of previous connection  of Ravi Kumar    has been charged in the bill of the complainant dated 12.9.2018. This is  well within  the period of 2 years. This is time  period  mentioned in Section 56.2 of the Electricity Act 2003, which provide that no arrears are recoverable after a period of 2 years if  they are not  continuously shown in his bills as arrears.    

                            Moreover apparently said clause 56.2 of Electricity Act pertains to  case of detection  of chargeable  arrears of a particular and specific Electricity  Connection. In the present case the chargeable  arrears pertains  to the earlier connection  running in the name of earlier owner Ravi Kumar in the same  premises  now owned by new owner i.e complainant , who has stepped into shoes of the  earlier owner Ravi Kumar  and is therefore liable to pay the out standing arrears of electricity charges added to electricity bill i. e Rs.330,48/- as sundry charges.  Thus, Keeping in view  the above said facts and circumstances into consideration  it is found that the authorities cited by  Ld. Counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and quite distinguishable

 

9.   Vide order dated 16.11.2018, Ld. District Consumer Commission,  Mohali  had restrained OPs from disconnecting the above said connection  subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- out of the demand amount Rs.330,48/- within 15 days and subject to deposit of further electricity bill  regularly.  

In view of the above saiddiscussion, the presentcomplaint is hereby dismissed with no order  as to cost. Hence the sundry amount of 330,48/- has been  rightly charged by the OPs. The complainants are directed to deposit the  sundry charges amount Rs.33048/- after adjusting  the amount of Rs.10,000/-   ( incase paid by the complainant). Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and the OPs as per rules. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to pandemic of Covid-19. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and the OPs as per rules. File be returned back to District Consumer Commission , Mohali, for proper consignment.

    Pronounced 21 March 2023

                                                           

                                                                      (Satish Kumar Aggarwal)

                                                                              President

                                                                    

    

                                                                                   (Shivani Bhargava)

                                                                              Member

 

                                                                                    ( Manjeet Singh Bhinder )

                                                                                                                                       Member