State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub ... vs Swaranjit Singh Son Of Shri Bishan Singh on 17 May, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 996 of 2007
Date of institution : 13.7.2007
Date of Decision : 17.5.2012
Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Estate U-II, Ludhiana through its
Executive Engineer.
....Appellant.
Versus
Swaranjit Singh son of Shri Bishan Singh, resident of Gali No. 10, Hargobind
Nagar, Giaspura, Ludhiana.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 29.3.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Mr. Chetan Dayal, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kundal, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant-PSEB (hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 29.3.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called 'the respondent') was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was residing in the house purchased by his father Bishan Singh from Kanwaljit Singh vide Vasika No. 2795 dated 4.5.2005. The respondent applied for new electric connection in that premises and deposited Rs. 4650/- vide receipt dated 14.9.2005 alongwith necessary documents. The appellant installed electric connection No. HG44/0447 (DS) in the name of the respondent, who was First Appeal No. 996 of 2007 2 paying the bills regularly. Thereafter, the respondent received bill dated 28.4.2006 in which demand of Rs. 62,865/- was raised against the column 'sundry charges'. Respondent inquired from the officials of the appellant, who told that the said amount relates to some other person, namely, Major Singh. The appellant without assigning any reason raised a demand of Rs. 62,865/- from the respondent as no amount was due against his electric connection No. HG44/0447 (DS). As per rules, the appellant cannot transfer the outstanding of any other person in his account. At the time of releasing the new connection, the appellant verified the site and no amount was due against the said property as the property was a vacant plot when the same was purchased by his father. The appellant threatened the respondent either to pay the amount otherwise his electric connection will be disconnected in such situation the respondent paid the same. Complaint was filed on the ground that the illegal demand of Rs. 62,865/- may kindly be quashed and the appellant may be directed to refund the amount in dispute with interest @ 12% per annum till realization and prayed for compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and deficiency in service.
3. Upon notice, the appellant replied by taking preliminary objection that the respondent has not come to the District Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, as such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, it was pleaded that electric connection bearing A/c HG-29/217 was installed in the name of Major Singh in the same premises but later the electric connection No. HF- 44/0447 was installed in said premises. An amount of Rs. 62,865/- was outstanding against A/c No. HG-29/217 and the respondent failed to deposit the same, as such, electric connection No. HG-29/217 was permanently disconnected. The respondent instead of depositing the said First Appeal No. 996 of 2007 3 amount obtained new electric connection No. HG-44/0447 by mis- representation. The respondent was user/beneficiary of both the connections, as such, he was liable to pay the defaulting amount of Rs. 62,865/- outstanding against A/c No. HG-29/217. The said amount of Rs. 62,865/- was added in electric connection No. HG-44/0447 as sundry charges. This fact came to the notice of the appellant when checking dated 21.2.2006 was conducted by the officials of the appellant. The bill regarding the due amount was issued to the respondent but he after receiving the bill refused to sign the acknowledgement of the same. It was denied that the father of the respondent had purchased the vacant plot and no electric connection No. HG-29/217 was installed/working in the premises in dispute. The respondent being beneficiary user of the earlier connection was liable to pay the outstanding amount against A/c No. HG- 29/217. The demand of disputed amount was rightly raised from the respondent as per rules and regulations of the Board. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint and quashed the demand in dispute. The appellant was directed to refund the amount deposited, if any, against the said demand with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till refund.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The present appeal is filed by the appellant on the ground that it is settled law that the Electricity Board is entitled to recover the dues from the existing consumer as per terms and conditions of the supply First Appeal No. 996 of 2007 4 framed under Section 49 of the Electricity Act, as such, the order of the District Forum is against the terms and conditions of Electricity Supply Code. It is admitted case of both the parties that the electric connection bearing A/c No. HG-44/0447 (DS) was installed in the premises of the respondent after inspecting the site of the premises of the respondent. It is also admitted case of both the parties that no due was outstanding against the respondent.
8. The demand of Rs. 62,865/- was raised by the appellant in the bill dated 28.4.2006 as sundry charges, which was outstanding against A/c No. HG-29/0217 which was in the name of one Major Singh. The version of the appellant that the said connection was installed in the same premises where the electric connection bearing A/c No. HG-44/0447 was installed in the name of Major Singh, who had not deposited the dues of Rs. 62,865/-, which were outstanding against said account and the same was disconnected permanently. The respondent succeeded in obtaining new electric connection in the same premises by mis-representation.
9. Before adding Rs. 62,865/- in the bill of the respondent as sundry charges, no separate bill was issued by the appellant to the respondent giving complete details of the charges levied as per Electricity Supply Regulation No. 124.1 and the demand was clubbed/added in the current bill of the consumer, which was against the Electricity Supply Regulations of the appellant itself.
10. The version of the respondent that he is not liable to pay the amount in dispute as the plot/premises where the connection No. HG- 44/0447 was released by the appellant was purchased by his father from one Kanwaljit Singh s/o Gurmit Singh and at that time there was no construction over the plot.
First Appeal No. 996 of 2007 5
11. We have also perused the registered deed Ex. C-2, which proves the version of the respondent that the plot was purchased by Bishan Singh s/o Nikka Singh for Rs. 3,50,000/-. So from the registered deed it is proved beyond doubt that at the time of purchase of the plot by father of the respondent, there was no construction, as such, question does not arise that electric connection No. HG-29/0217 was installed and running in the said plot.
12. We have also perused the copy of checking register Ex. R-1, which bears date 21.2.2006 by the officials of the appellant. Note is given in the same that "the meter of the consumer was removed as Rs. 62,865/- were outstanding against the consumer. Now in the said premises, A/c No. HG-44/0447 is running from where the consumer is consuming the supply of electricity." The said report was signed by Major Singh s/o Mahinder Singh and on the basis of the said report, an amount of Rs. 62,865/- was added in the account No. HG-44/0447 of the respondent.
13. It is proved beyond doubt that the plot was purchased by the father of the respondent on 4th May, 2005 then how defaulter Major Singh was present in the said premises on 21.2.2006, when he was neither the owner of the said plot nor the tenant of the same. The appellant has also not disclosed how Major Singh was present when the premises of the respondent was checked by the official of the appellant. In the checking report, the account number is mentioned HG-29/0217 and address of the consumer was mentioned "Sh. Major Singh, Near Shiv Mandir, Main Gali", when the meter in the name of the respondent was installed in Gali No. 10, Hargobind Nagar, Gyas Pura, Ludhiana i.e. in Village Gyaspura and not Near Shiv Mandir, Main Gali where connection No. HG-29/0217 was running. The appellant also not disclosed any relation of Major Singh with the respondent. The premises was also inspected by the officials of the First Appeal No. 996 of 2007 6 appellant before release of the connection to the respondent. If any arrears of consumption were outstanding for the said premises, where the electric connection was applied by the respondent then why the demand of Rs. 62,865/- was not raised from the respondent before the release of the new electric connection to the respondent.
14. It is earlier settled by this Commission that no law permits the amount outstanding against one connection can be added in another connection in case "Punjab State Electricity Board versus Garjit Kaur", 2004 (1) CLT 622 in paras No. 6 & 7 as follows:-
"6. Learned counsel has not been able to show us any law, which permitted the amount outstanding against one connection that could be added in the bill of another connection if the demand related to the same consumer.
7. It's an admitted case of the parties that the demand in dispute relates to another connection bearing account No. CF-75/0487 and the same was added to the account of the complainant. The demand made by the opposite parties (sic) to the connection, which was in the name of Surya Kiran A.C. Market Welfare Society. The said amount under the rules of the opposite party itself as has not been denied by the learned counsel for the appellants could not be added to the account of the complainant. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. All these appeals, namely, Appeals Nos. 746 to 753 of 2003 are, thus, dismissed in limine. It is, however, ordered that the opposite parties are at liberty to demand and secure the payment with regard to the energy consumed from any other consumer from whom it is due."
15. The Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula also held it its latest judgment passed in case "SDO, DHBVNL & Anr. Versus Saroj Devi", II (2011) CPJ 378 that "it is not disputed that the bill in question relates to the period prior to 26.4.2006, when the complainant was not the owner of the house. Therefore, the complainant cannot be burdened with the impugned bill. The appellants- First Appeal No. 996 of 2007 7 opposite parties are at liberty to recover the due amount from its previous owner of the house in accordance with rules."
16. In view of the above discussion and proposition of law, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot recover the amount in dispute from the respondent. The order passed by the learned District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal being without any merit is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- and the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 8.5.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
18. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 13,799/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 13,799/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
19. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
May 17, 2012. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member