District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran (Punjab)
C.C. No. : 23 of 2015
Date of Institution : 01.04.2015
Date of Decision : 08.07.2015
Promila Rani widow of Joginder Pal son of Chaman Lal (since deceased), resident of Bazaar Tootian, Tarn Taran
…Complainant
Versus
S.D.O City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. City Tarn Taran.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Ms. Vasudha Arora Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.K.S. Virk, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party.
Quorum: Sh. J.S.Khushdil, President.
Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member.
Smt.Jaswinder Kaur Dolly, Member
(Sh J S Khushdil, President)
- The complainant, Smt. Primila Rani filed a complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against S.D.O, City Sub Division Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. City Tarn Taran (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Party’) supported by various documents levelling allegations of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
2 The complainant claims that Joginder Pal was consumer of the opposite party and was having electricity connection bearing account Number P22CG.3410.68N and Joginder Pal has since died. The complainant is widow of Joginder Pal. Since, she is consuming the electricity, therefore she is beneficiary of the services provided by the opposite party. She is paying amount of bills received by her from time to time and there is no arrears payable by her. The latest bill (Ex. C.4) amounting to Rs. 49,397/- has been received which was payable through cheque on 12.5.2014 and by cash on 12.5.2014(Actual date 14.5.2014). The opposite party has illegally and without any notice claimed the above said amount. On inquiry, it was informed to her that said amount was due from one Sudarshan Kumar who was tenant in the shop of Joginder Pal husband of the complainant. It was alleged that instead of claiming amount of Rs. 49,397/- from the said Sudarshan Kumar it has been illegally debited in to the account of Joginder Pal. A registered letter (Ex. C.5) was sent to the opposite party on 3.5.2014 with the request to accept the current consumption charges of Rs. 1,982/- and not to recover illegal amount of Rs. 49,397/-. The Additional S.E T.T. has also wrote a letter No. 4789/91 dated 15.5.2013 (Ex. C.6) to Additional S.E. Patti but S.D.O City Sub Division, Tarn Taran refused to accept the current consumption charges and was insisting to recover amount of Rs. 49,397/- to which the complainant is not liable to pay. It is alleged that there is clear violation of rule 37(5-b) of the Electricity Supply Code and latest circular in this regard. No notice was ever issued to the complainant before claiming such illegal amount from her. No detail of alleged charges was ever supplied to the complainant by way of notice or otherwise. The opposite party has been approached many times with a request to withdraw the above said illegal amount but the opposite party put off the matter on the one pretext or the other and finally refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant. The opposite party further threatened that they would recover the illegal amount by disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant forcibly and by illegal means. It was alleged that the opposite party has now disconnected the electricity connection illegally and without any notice which amounts to put pressure upon her to make the payment of illegal amount. The complainant alleged that the opposite party is guilty of fault, imperfection and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant, therefore, prayed to this Forum to accept her complaint and to award the following relief against Opposite Party:-
(A) Impugned bill issued by the opposite party qua disputed amount be declared as null and void and same be set aside.
(B) The opposite party be directed to up date the official record in respect of her electric connection No. P22CG.3410.68N
(C) The electric connection No. P22CG.3410.68N illegally disconnected by the opposite party be restored.
(D) The opposite party be restrained from recovering any alleged illegal amount from the complainant.
(E) To award Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation
3 Notice of this complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through its counsel and filed written version wherein various preliminary objections have been taken inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum as the complainant was required to approach Consumer Disputes Redressal Committees established at zonal level and circle level by the opposite party; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is time barred by limitation. On merits, it was alleged that the complainant Promila Rani is not the consumer of the opposite party. She has not got effected the change of name, as such she cannot claim herself to be beneficiary of the opposite party. It was averred that Sudarshan Kumar was tenant in the shop owned by Late Joginder Pal. A meter No. GC.34/1068 was installed on the name of Sudarshan Kumar in the said premises owned by late Joginder Pal wherein Joginder Pal was security holder of that meter. A sum of Rs. 42,120/- was outstanding in the name of Sudarshan Kumar. Therefore, the defaulting amount of Rs. 42,120/- was transferred against meter No. PB22 CG.3410.68N which is in the name of Joginder Pal in the bill dated 12.5.2014. The said amount was transferred in the account of Late Joginder Pal being legal owner of the shop in which defaulter meter was installed. The tenant handed over the shop to legal owner of the shop Joginder Pal in which defaulting meter was installed. Late Joginder Pal was surety holder of Sudarshan Kumar. Therefore defaulting amount was transferred in his account. The other allegations have been denied by the opposite party and finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4 The complainant in order to substantiate her claim tendered in to evidence her duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith following documents
Ex. C-2 Copy of previous order of this Forum vide which the complainant has withdrawn the complaint with permission to file fresh complaint.
Ex. C.3 Electricity Bill dated 3.1.2015 amounting to Rs. 54,667/- in which arrears of Rs. 54,327/- have been shown.
Ex. C.4 Bill dated 29.4.2014 amounting to Rs. 51,378/- in which arrears of Rs. 49,397/- have been shown
Ex. C.5 Letter written by one Naresh Kumar Aggarwal in which it was claimed that meter No. T 22CG341068N was being used by him.
Ex. C.6 Letter of Additional S.E Tarn Taran to Additional S.E. Patti Division
Ex. C.7 Copy Regulation No. 30.5(B) of supply code.
and closed the evidence.
5 On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite party has tendered in to evidence affidavit of Pawan Kumar S.D.O Ex. OP/1 alongwith following document
Ex. OP/2 List of defaulting amount.
and closed the evidence.
6 We have heard the ld counsel for the complainant as well as Opposite party and also gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant and also perused the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the assistance of ld. counsel for the parties. However, written arguments have not been filed by the opposite parties despite availing sufficient opportunities.
7 It is argued by the ld counsel for the complainant that the complainant is covered under the definition of consumer as she is consuming the electricity supply given to her premises. It was submitted that Joginder Pal was neither the guarantor nor was under any duty to pay the consumption charges of his tenant who got separate connection. Reliance was placed on Shikha Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs New Delhi Municipal Committee 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 510(Delhi) in which it was held as under:-
Electricity-Bill- Non Payment by tenant- Electricity connection in name of tenant-Arrears of electricity charges cannot be fastened on landlord who is neither registered consumer nor actual user of electricity.
It is submitted that this complaint has been filed a fresh. Previous complaints were dismissed as withdrawn. But Forum has given permission, therefore objections of the opposite party is not tenable qua the maintainability of this complaint. The ld. Counsel for the complainant has referred to 30.1.2 of the Supply Code 2014. Ld. Counsel for the complainant, therefore, urged before us that the arrears of electricity consumption pertained to Sudarshan Kumar who was having separate electricity connection GC 34/1068 and this fact has been admitted by the opposite party in their written version as well as in affidavit of Pawan Kumar Ex. OPs/1. No evidence has been brought by the opposite party to the effect that in case of default committed by a tenant, the land lord or his legal heirs would make the payment of arrears of any amount towards electricity power consumed by a tenant. In this way, the addition of the arrears in the account No. P22CG.3410.68N of Joginder Pal, now used by the complainant is illegal. She further contended that no notice was ever issued to the complainant with regard to the recovery of the arrears from Late Joginder Pal or no bifurcation of arrears or the period of arrear was ever given. It was urged that Joginder Pal was neither guarantor nor under the duty to pay consumption charges of his tenant and no evidence or law has been produced by opposite party to that effect. Mere bald assertion that Joginder Pal was liable to pay the arrears of his tenant Sudarshan Kumar is not tenable. It was argued that opposite party is to recover the arrears, if any against account No. 47/1710. It was submitted that this fact was within the notice of the opposite party that said Sudarshan Kumar is now using the electricity account No. 47/1710 installed at Ganpati Filling Station. Ld. Counsel for complainant submitted that electricity connection P22CG.3410.68N has since been restored by the opposite party. It was prayed to accept the complaint and to grant relief as claimed by the complainant.
8 On the other hand, ld counsel for the opposite party Sh. K.S. Virk Advocate has opposed the contention of ld counsel for the complainant and urged before us that first of all Promila Rani is not consumer of the opposite party. The electricity connection P22CG.3410.68N is in the name of Joginder Pal and this was never got transferred by the complainant in her name and as such she is not consumer and beneficiary of services provided by the opposite party. It was argued that Sudarshan Kumar was tenant of Joginder Pal and arrears amounting to Rs. 42,120/- were rightly transferred in to the account of Joginder Pal in the bill issued on 29.4.2014 (Ex. C.4) and subsequent bill as Joginder Pal was surety holder of Sudarshan Kumar, ld counsel for opposite party has also referred to affidavit of Pawan Kumar Ex. OPs/1. It was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9 We have taken in to consideration the contentions and rival contentions of both the parties in the light of record.
10 There is no dispute regarding the installation of meter bearing account No. P22CG.3410.68N which belongs to Joginder Pal (since deceased). The claimant claimed that the bill showing amount of Rs. 49,397/- has been received which does not belong to the complainant rather this pertains to Sudarshan Kumar who was a tenant in the shop owned by Joginder Pal (deceased). The opposite party has also taken specific plea that arrears of Rs. 42,120/- were pertaining to Sudarshan Kumar who was tenant in the shop owned by Joginder Pal and said Joginder Pal was surety holder. The defaulting meter was installed in the said shop. As Sudarshan Kumar has not paid the amount, therefore the defaulting amount was transferred in the account of Joginder Pal. The legal objection has been taken that complainant has not got transferred the electricity connection in her name.
11 This Forum has taken note that previously this complaint was dismissed as withdrawn. The bill Ex.C.3 dated 3.1.2015 amounting to Rs. 54,660/- in which arrears of Rs. 54,327/- have been shown. Similarly Bill Ex. C. 4 dated 29.4.2014 amounting to Rs. 51,220/- in which arrears of Rs. 49,397/- have been shown. One Naresh Kumar Aggarwal has written letter to the opposite party claiming that he was using the electric meter No. T22CG341068N allotted to Joginder Pal and arrears of Rs. 42,397/- have been wrongly claimed. During the arguments it was admitted that Narinder Kumar Aggarwal is son of Joginder Pal. In the letter Ex. C.6 written by S.E Tarn Taran to Additional S.E. Patti Division, it has been mentioned that amount of Rs. 42,120/- pertains to Sudarshan Kumar who was a tenant and now said Sudarshan Kumar is using electricity under account No. 47/1710 in the name of Ganpati Filling Station, therefore the arrears of this amount be charged from him. Ex. C.7 is regarding violation of supply code Regulation 30.5(B) which is as under
“The bill for arrears in the case of under assessment or the charges levied as a result of checking etc. will be initially tendered separately and will not be clubbed with the current electricity bill. The arrear bill would briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrears.
12 Pawan Kumar S.D.O in his affidavit Ex. OP/1 has mentioned that Sudarshan Kumar was the tenant of Joginder Pal. Therefore he is liable to make the payment of arrears of 40,248/-. Therefore those are rightly been claimed as arrears against the account Number P22CG.3410.68N.
13 It is crystal clear on the file that these are arrears which pertained to Sudarshan Kumar who was at one time tenant of Joginder Pal (since deceased). No rent note has been placed on record by either party which could have revealed that land lord would be liable to pay any arrears of electricity consumed by the tenant. Prolima Rani claims herself widow of Joginder Pal. No evidence has been placed on record in rebuttal by the opposite party to this effect.
14 From the evidence it is abundantly clear that Late Joginder Pal was having account Number P22CG.3410.68N whereas Sudarshan Kumar was admittedly his tenant and was having account Number GC, 34/1068. There is no evidence that electricity connection was in the same premises. Obviously, if Sudarshan Kumar was a tenant in the shop of Late Joginder Pal then the said connection would have been a commercial connection. The opposite party has added the arrears of Rs. 49,397/- by issuing the bill dated 29.4.2014(Ex. C.4) and subsequent bills from time to time. The complainant by filing an application (Ex. C.5) agitated regarding the wrong addition of arrears in the above said bill. There is also letter Ex. C.6 written by Additional S E Tarn Taran City to Additional S.E. Patti Division that Sudarshan Kumar was in arrears and now he was using electricity against account No. 47/1710 in the name of Ganpati Filling Station therefore, the said amount be charged from him. As it was not charged from Sudarshan Kumar, the arrears were claimed from the bill of Joginder Pal by issuing bill Ex. C.4. Thus we are of the view that claiming of arrears from Joginder Pal or his legal heir is totally illegal. It is worth while to mention here that no rule, regulation and instruction has been shown by the opposite party that the arrears of a tenant having different account could be claimed from another person having separate electricity connection and account. It is settled proposition of the law that any amount outstanding against one electricity connection can not be added in the bill of another connection. Our views are fortified by Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Gurjit Kaur 2004(1) CLT-622 of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. Such a wrongful tactics would put a consumer in embarrassing position. Moreover, in the instant case the opposite party has found the complainant being easy target. The electricity is not consumed by the complainant and other legal heirs through meter installed in shop. Joginder Pal was having separate account Number P22CG.3410.68N and now the complainant and other legal heirs are consuming the electricity through that electric connection. Now opposite party cannot say that complainant is not consumer. It is a notable point that the electricity connection has been restored by the opposite party as is disclosed by the ld counsel for the complainant during arguments. We are further of the view that such type of unfair trade practice amounts to put innocent consumer in embarrassing position. In the instant case, the complainant has made several attempts to get her account corrected but the opposite party did not pay any heed to her genuine request, therefore, the complainant was forced to file the instant case for the redressal of her grievances. Obviously, the complainant would have undergone physical & mental harassment, agony and inconvenience without any reasonable cause. The opposite party was at liberty to ask the consumer to apply a fresh electricity connection, if so required. If Sudarshan Kumar was in the arrears of any amount then the opposite party could claim from him in a lawful manner. Moreover, as per version of the counsel for the complainant electricity connection has already been restored, therefore, relief sought qua restoration of electricity connection stands infructuous.
15 Therefore, this Forum is of the view that the instant complaint has merits and the same is accepted. The demand of arrears of Rs.49,397/- raised vide bill dated 29.4.2014 Ex.C4 subsequent demand of arrears is hereby set aside. The Opposite party is directed to issue the fresh bill to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption excluding the aforementioned amount of arrears and correct its record accordingly. However, the Opposite party is at liberty to recover the disputed amount, if any, from said Sudarshan Kumar or any other person as per law/ rules. Further the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,100/- being consolidated amount of compensation which includes counsel fee and litigation expenses. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Forum.
Dated: 08.07.2015.
(J.S.Khushdil)
President
(Jaswinder Kaur Dolly) (R.D.Sharma)
Member Member
