State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ajaib Singh Son Of Sh. Kartar Singh, vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 6 June, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1127 of 2007
Date of institution : 21.8.2007
Date of Decision : 6.6.2012
Ajaib Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh, resident of Kothi No. 111, East Mohan
Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar.
....Appellant.
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, service through the Sub
Divisional Officer, PSEB, Sultanwind Sub Division, Amritsar.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 25.6.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Amritsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Vivek Sharma, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant-Ajaib Singh (hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 25.6.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is owner in possession of the property bearing plot No. 111 measuring 299.55 Sq. yards, East Mohan Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar, which was purchased by him vide registered sale deed dated 19.6.2002. In the said premises, an electric connection No. SW67/0266 (DS) was running in the First Appeal No. 1127 of 2007 2 name of Sh. Mandeep Singh, the previous owner of the property and nothing was outstanding against the said account.
3. After the purchase of the property, he had approached the respondents for the release of the electric connection of 1 KW of NRS category in the said premises to earn his livelihood by way of self employment but the respondents refused to accept the application of the appellant when the application form was complete as per the requirements of the respondents. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to accept the electric connection application/form from the appellant with the requisite fee from the appellant and to release the connection to the appellant. It was further prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation as well as Rs. 2500/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, the respondent replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was false and meritless, the previous connection was in the name of Mandeep Singh and was not in the name of Ajaib Singh, as such, the appellant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer', no proof of residence at 111, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar was produced by the appellant with the District Forum, even in the premises bearing No. 111, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar, an amount of Rs. 1,04,888/- was outstanding against one Joginder Singh, the appellant was duty bound to find out before the purchase of the same premises whether any amount is due of the PSEB against the electric connection running in the said premises. On merits, the purchase of house and sale deed was denied for want of knowledge. It was admitted that an electric connection bearing account No. SW/67-0266 DS was installed in the name of Sh. Mandip Singh in the premises in dispute. It was admitted that an application form No. 13725 was submitted by the appellant in the office of First Appeal No. 1127 of 2007 3 the respondents which was marked to J.E. concerned with the seal of the respondents for his report. But the same was not returned by the appellant to the respondents. The connection was applied for commercial category, as such, the appellant also does not come under the definition of 'consumer'. No fee was deposited by the appellant with the respondents. It was further pleaded that connection No. MS-250/PD was installed in the said premises in the name of Joginder Singh against whom an amount of Rs. 1,04,888/- outstanding, as such, the appellant was also bound to check before the purchase of the house whether any amount/bill was outstanding against any person, who has resided in the said premises. It was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with Rs. 25000/- as costs for filing of false complaint and Rs. 5000/- as costs of the litigation expenses for contesting wrong complaint.
5. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, dismissed the complaint by observing that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.
6. Hence, the appeal.
7. 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.
8. The present appeal is filed by the appellant on the grounds that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the documents which were produced by the appellant and the appellant had applied for electric connection to run his business under KV-1 category for his livelihood but the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum on conjectures and surmises, as such, the appeal is liable to be accepted with costs.
First Appeal No. 1127 of 2007 4
9. It was admitted by the respondents that an application was made by the appellant for the release of the electric connection but the same was marked and returned to the appellant to get the report of concerned official of the PSEB but the same was not returned by the appellant to the respondents. On the other hand, the version of the appellant is that he had gone to the office of the respondent many time but they refused to accept the same. The version of the respondent that the same was marked to the concerned J.E. is not correct.
10. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum only on the ground that the certified copy of the sale deed was not produced by the appellant in evidence. But it is also admitted that photocopy of the said deed is tendered into evidence as Ex. C-5. The photostat copy of the sale deed was tendered into evidence by the appellant without any objection by the respondent. Even the District Forum has also not accepted the said Photostat copy of the sale deed under objection that the same will be considered at the time of final arguments whether this document is to be read in evidence or not? The proceedings in the District Forum are summary in nature, as such, the findings of the District Forum on this score that certified copy of the sale deed is not produced, as such, he failed to establish that he had purchased the property where he wants the release of the connection is not correct.
11. It is also settled law that the purchaser of the property is not liable to pay any arrear if outstanding against any other consumer, who was in arrears pertaining to any other connection, which was released to the earlier consumer/resident as held by the Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in case "SDO, DHBVNL & Anr. Versus Saroj Devi", II (2011) CPJ 378 in para No. 4 as follows:-
First Appeal No. 1127 of 2007 5
"4. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the house on 26.4.2006 from Ashok Kumar where the aforesaid electricity connection was installed. It is also 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-opposite parties are at liberty to recover the due amount from its previous owner of the house in accordance with rules. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out."
12. Even it was held by this Commission in First Appeal No. 746 of 2003 titled as "Punjab State Electricity Board versus Garjit Kaur", 2004(1) CLT 622 in para No. 6 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."
13. We have also perused Ex. R-3 tendered into evidence by the respondent to show that Rs. 1,04,888/- were outstanding against Joginder Singh, who was previously residing in the premises in dispute. As per Ex. R-3 Sh. Joginder Singh was residing at 111, East Mohan Nagar premises, which was purchased by the appellant from one Mandip Singh but as per Ex. R-3 the connection was running/released in the factory of Joginder Singh, namely, M/s Wire & Wire Ind. In the premises of 112, East Mohan Nagar. So from Ex. R-3, it is proved beyond any doubt that the connection in the name of Joginder Singh was not running in 111, East Mohan Nagar. As such, no amount was outstanding against premises No. 111 where the appellant had applied for new connection. The respondent cannot raise any demand from the appellant if any bill of charges was outstanding against the electric connection which was installed and running in premises No. 112. The appellant had applied for new connection in premises No. 111 but no evidence was produced by the respondent that any amount was outstanding against any electric connection which was installed in the same premises.
First Appeal No. 1127 of 2007 6
14. In view of the above proposition of law, we are of the view that the respondent cannot refuse the appellant to release the new electric connection on the basis of amount outstanding against other premises.
15. It is the admitted case of the appellant that he had applied for 1 K.W. load electric connection for commercial purpose to earn his livelihood but this fact was not denied by the respondent. No evidence is produced by the respondent that the appellant had any other source of income, as such, he is entitled for the electric connection as per Consumer Protection Act.
16. The respondent also not produced any evidence or document by which the respondent had informed the appellant for the rejection of the application submitted by the appellant, as such, the cause of action will also run from the date of refusal by the respondent so the findings of the District Forum that the complaint was not within limitation are also not correct.
17. The appellant had submitted all the requisite documents to the respondent for the release of tubewell connection and also produced the same in the District Forum as per the order of this Commission dated 7.3.2010 in Revision Petition No. 79 of 2006 titled as "Ajaib Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board".
18. The District Forum has overlooked all these documents and passed the order for dismissal of the complaint against the evidence and documents on record, as such, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
19. In view of the above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellant and direct the respondent to release the electric connection as applied by the appellant within three months from the receipt of copy of the order and if any other document will be required than the respondent will First Appeal No. 1127 of 2007 7 be immediately informed to the appellant for the submission of the same under registered cover note. The respondent is burdened with the cost of Rs. 10,000/-, which is liable to be paid to the appellant within two months from the receipt of copy of the order. This amount be recovered from the official, who was at fault.
20. The respondent will inform the Commission regarding the action taken against the official, who was at fault within three months from the receipt of copy of the order. Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to the Chairman, P.S.E.B. (now P.S.P.C.L.), Patiala for necessary action against the official, who was at fault so that in future no official harass the consumers, who approaches the P.S.P.C.L. for the release of electric connections as the electricity in these days is not luxury but need of the time.
21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 29.5.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
22. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
June 6, 2012. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member