State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harminder Singh vs Pspcl on 20 April, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 595 of 2016
Date of institution : 05.08.2016
Date of decision : 20.04.2017
Harmander Singh son of Balraj Singh R/o Village Bedowali, Tehsil
Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.......Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, through is XEN,
Operation Division, PSPCL, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2. S.D.O. Sub Division, Lambi, PSPCL, Lambi, Tehsil and
District Sri Muktsar Sahib
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
29.06.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar
Sahib.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. B.S. Aulakh, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Order
This appeal has been preferred by appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as 'Complainant') under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') against the order dated 29.06.2016 in C.C. No. 134 of 09.10.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, First Appeal No. 595 of 2016. 2 Sri Muktsar Sahib (in short the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant Sh. Harminder Singh, under section 12 of the Act against the respondent/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as 'OPs) on the averments that he is consumer of OPs having consumer No. Y12BW360558. He was regularly paying the electricity bills. However on 22.09.2015, OPs issued a demand of Rs. 1,63,920/- as sundry charges, which has been issued on account of grudge of OP No. 2, Ranjit Singh, S.D.O. The complainant requested OPs to withdraw the notice, but it was not withdrawn. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking directions against OPs to withdraw the bill amount of Rs. 1,63,920/- alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by OPs who filed their written reply taking preliminary objections that the electric connection bearing No. BW/36/0013 was working in the name of Bhag Singh, S/o Nand Singh grandfather of the complainant. The complainant was using the said connection. The bills were not paid and P.D.C.O bearing No. 138/62103 dated 25.03.2013 was issued. Even after the issuance of P.D.C.O., only part-payments were paid against the consumption bills and connection was permanently disconnected on 16.12.2013. The J.E. of OPs visited the premises on 30.06.2015 for collection of the outstanding amount and came to know that the electricity connection bearing No. BW-36/558 was working in the First Appeal No. 595 of 2016. 3 name of the complainant in the premises whereas the connection was disconnected for outstanding amount of Rs. 1,62,958/-. Accordingly, notice was issued to the complainant to pay this amount otherwise legally no new connection can be given to the complainant till the clearance of the previous amount, but the complainant managed in connivance with the official of OPs. There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. On merits, averments stated in the preliminary objections were reiterated. It was again reiterated that the outstanding amount against connection No. BW-36/0013 in the name of the grandfather of the complainant was being claimed as it was being used by his grandfather and now the complainant has taken the connection in the same premises. The complaint is without merit and it be dismissed.
4. Parties lead their evidence in support of their respective versions before the District Forum.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex. C-1, bill dated 22.09.2015 as Ex. C-2, its photocopy is Ex. C-3 bill dated 24.07.2015 Ex. C-4, bill dated 21.03.2015 Ex. C-5, receipt dated 10.08.2015 Ex. C-6, photocopy of bill dated 24.07.2015 Ex. C-7, photocopy of bill dated 21.03.2015 Ex. C-8, photocopy of receipt dated 10.08.2015 Ex. C-9, original bill ledgers of Des Raj S/o Mela Ram, Sanjeev Kumar s/o Manohar Lal, Harbans Lal S/o Des Raj, Principal Govt. Middle School and Primary School and the photocopies of the same are Ex. C-10 to Ex. C-13, attested copy of letter No. 801 dated 10.08.2015 is Ex. C-14 and First Appeal No. 595 of 2016. 4 attested copy of letter of XEN, PSPCL Badal Memo No. 665 dated 01.03.2016 is Ex. C-15 vide which payment has been made through receipt No. 392 dated 02.03.2016, attested copy of SCO dated 26.02.1964 and PDCL dated 01.02.2012 of Atta Chaki and of Sh. Des Raj S/o Sh. Mela Ram are Ex. C-16 and Ex. C-17 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Ranjit Singh Ex. OP-1, attested photocopy of ledger of the bill with P code Ex. OP-2, attested photocopy of ledger of the bill dated 22.09.2015 Ex. OP-3, attested photocopy of the PDCO effected on 16.12.2013 Ex. OP-4, attested photocopy of notice dated 30.07.2015 Ex. OP-5, attested photocopy of self declaration of complainant dated 26.12.2013 Ex. OP-6, attested photocopy of sundry register (one page) Ex. OP-7, affidavit Ex. OP-8, attested photocopy of checking report dated 30.06.2015 Ex. OP-9, photocopy of ledger of the bill dated 04.02.2014 Ex. OP-10, attested photocopy of SCO dated 27.01.2014 as Ex. OP-11 and closed the evidence.
6. After going through the averments made in the complaint, written reply filed by OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed as referred above after observing that the outstanding amount can be collected from the person who is using the electricity in the same premises. It seems that the complainant in connivance with the officials of OPs had taken a new connection, otherwise no new connection in the same premises can be issued until the clearance of the outstanding amount.
First Appeal No. 595 of 2016. 5
7. Aggrieved with the order, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard counsel for the appellant/complainant Sh. B.S. Aulakh, Advocate and counsel for respondents/opposite parties Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate and have carefully gone through the record of the case and written arguments submitted by the counsel for OPs.
9. In case, there is recovery of the arrears from defaulting consumer, a reference can be made to the Electricity Supply Regulations, Section 7, Regulation 123.7 which reads as under:-
123.7 The permanently disconnected consumers who are defaulters of PSEB may sell their premises/property without any intimation to PSEB. If this happens, the chances of recovery of defaulting amount become remote. Therefore, it is desirable that the field officers may intimate the revenue authorities like SDM/Tehsildar regarding the amount to be paid by the consumer to the Board so that if any transaction regarding sale or purchase of the property takes place, the revenue authorities may be in a position to recover the outstanding amount due to the PSEB at the time of such sale or purchase and pass on to PSEB. Compliance of these instructions need to be monitored by Sr. Field Officers and in case it is noticed that the Sub divisional officers/Officials have not taken due care in informing the revenue authorities, then in that case if recovery is not possible due to sale/purchase of the premises/property, the said amount would be recoverable from the officer/official responsible for not intimating to the revenue authorities.First Appeal No. 595 of 2016. 6
Counsel for OPs has further referred to the judgment passed by this Commission reported as "Atul Puri Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board", 2012 (2) CLT324. In that case, electricity connection bearing account No. CW10/0297-H was in the name of his mother and appellant was actual user and beneficiary. A sum of Rs. 13,128/- was outstanding against the appellant and it was claimed from the account number of the complainant. There is no irregularity in claiming the amount of Rs. 13,128/- from the said account which is being used by the appellant. In the present case, the complainant is using the same premises where the defaulting amount is due. Counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant is not the only legal heir rather he is grandson whereas sons of the deceased are alive. Therefore, they should make the payment. However, we do not find force in this proposition. Firstly, the complainant is using the same premises, where the defaulting amount is there, therefore, primarily he is liable to pay the arrear, in case he has objection that all the legal heirs should pay the amount, then he could approach the Civil Court.
10. Sequel to the above discussion, we are of the opinion that no consumer dispute is involved and the order passed by the District Forum is justified and it does not call for any interference. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. However, after seeing the nature of the dispute between the parties, we are of the opinion that it is not a consumer dispute, therefore, the complainant will have a right to First Appeal No. 595 of 2016. 7 approach the appropriate Forum/Court to settle his claim with the OPs or with the legal heirs of the account holder.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
12. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal) President (Gurcharan Singh Saran) Judicial Member April 20, 2017 RK