DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB. 

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/255

Date of Institution : 06.04.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 16.08.2022

Mrs. Satwinder Kaur wife of Sh. Bakshish Singh resident of 171-A, New Partap Nagar, G.T. Road, Amritsar.                                                     …Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala Service through AEE, Mall Mandi Sub Division, Amritsar. 

                 …Opposite Party

 

Complaint U/S 12 & 13 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

 

Present: Sh. Deepinder Singh Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. V.K. Sehgal Adv counsel for the opposite party.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant has applied for the new electric connection for her domestic use and made payment of Rs. 5,330/- vide receipt No. 210010207381. It is alleged that the opposite party arbitrarily demanded an amount of Rs. 75,984/- on the ground that the same was due to previous owner without providing any details and the complainant under duress made the payment vide receipt dated 30.3.2017. The complainant visited the office of opposite party for the issuance of said electric connection but the opposite party flatly refused to install the said applied connection. The opposite party after lot of deliberations made on site report dated 14.3.2018 that in the said premises earlier electric connection No. PN687771 was installed and nothing is due towards that connection and some amount is payable regarding the electric connection in premises of the adjacent plot No. 170 to which the complainant has nothing to do. Due to which the complainant suffered mental torture, agony and harassment and the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

i) The opposite parties may be directed to issue the applied electric connection and refund the amount of Rs. 75,984/- paid by the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization.  

ii) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith litigation expenses. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement. It is admitted by the opposite party in the written statement that the complainant deposited Rs. 5,330/- vide receipt No. 210010207381. However, the averments of payment of Rs. 75,984/- are denied for want of knowledge and proof. It is further alleged that on submission of application for grant of new electric connection in the name of complainant in her property Plot No. 171-A, a spot inspection was made by the JE Mall Mandi Sub Division, Amritsar on 14.3.2018 in the presence of Sh. Bakhsish Singh husband of the complainant vide LCR No. 91/5011. The JE also made inspection of the PDCO records of the property under occupation of the complainant and at spot it transpired  that the complainant is in occupation of property built up on Plot No. 170 and 171. It is reported that in Plot No. 171 two connections (i) vide PN68-771 in the name of Jaswinder Singh against which there was no outstanding arrears amount and another (ii) connection A/c No. PN68/509 in the name of Ranjit Singh against which an amount of Rs. 96,474/- was outstanding as arrears and supply from this connection was being taken by the complainant for her residence. Further in Plot No. 170 there was one connection vide A/c No. PN68/734  in the name of one Santokh Singh whose meter had been already permanently disconnected for outstanding arrears of Rs. 50,977/-. As such, both the buildings under the occupation of the complainant were in arrears to the tune of Rs. 1,47,451/- due to which these connections have been disconnected permanently. It is further alleged that in the property where any defaulting amount is outstanding, no new electricity connection can be granted until the old default amount/arrears are cleared. It is denied that the complainant was not supplied the details of the outstanding arrears of default amount against the properties under occupation of the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of the payment receipt Ex.C-2, copy of the inspection report Ex.C-3, copy of the SMS Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.   

5. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Vipan Vig, AEE Ex.O.P1/A, affidavit of Sh. Ajit Kumar SDO Ex.O.P2/A alongwith documents Ex.O.P2 to Ex.O.P9 and closed the evidence.  

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. 

7. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant has applied for the new electric connection for her domestic use and made payment of Rs. 5,330/- vide receipt No. 210010207381. It is also argued that the opposite party arbitrarily demanded an amount of Rs. 75,984/- on the ground that the same was due to previous owner without providing any details and the complainant under duress made the payment vide receipt dated 30.3.2017 Ex.C-2. The complainant visited the office of opposite party for the issuance of said electric connection but the opposite party flatly refused to install the said applied connection. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the opposite party after lot of deliberations made on site report dated 14.3.2018 stated that in the said premises earlier electric connection No. PN687771 was installed and nothing is due towards that connection and some amount is payable regarding the electric connection in premises of the adjacent plot No. 170 to which the complainant has nothing to do. 

8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party argued that on submission of application for grant of new electric connection in the name of complainant in her property Plot No. 171-A, a spot inspection was made by the JE Mall Mandi, Sub Division, Amritsar on 14.3.2018 in the presence of Sh. Bakhsish Singh husband of the complainant vide LCR No. 91/5011 Ex.O.P2. The JE also made inspection of the PDCO records of the property under occupation of the complainant and at spot it transpired  that the complainant is in occupation of property built up on Plot No. 170 and 171. It is reported that in Plot No. 171 two connections (i) vide PN68-771 in the name of Jaswinder Singh against which there was no outstanding arrears amount and another (ii) connection A/c No. PN68/509 in the name of Ranjit Singh against which an amount of Rs. 96,474/- was outstanding as arrears and supply from this connection was being taken by the complainant for her residence and in Plot No. 170 there was one connection vide A/c No. PN68/734 in the name of one Santokh Singh whose meter had been already permanently disconnected for outstanding arrears of Rs. 50,977/-. It is further argued that both the buildings under the occupation of the complainant were in arrears to the tune of Rs. 1,47,451/- due to which these connections have been disconnected permanently. It is further argued that in the property where any defaulting amount is outstanding, no new electricity connection can be granted until the old default amount/arrears are cleared. It is also argued that the complainant was supplied the details of the outstanding arrears of default amount against the properties under occupation of the complainant.

9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the opposite party cannot take the arrears of previous owner. To prove her case the complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 2005(1) CLT 444 in case titled Delhi Vidyut Board Versus Kewal Kishore Arora decided on 20th July 2004;-

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)- Electricity Act 1910, Section 24- Electricity Supply- Meter Transfer- Electricity bill- Arrears of - Liability of arrears of a previous contract cannot be put on a subsequent purchaser of property. 

It is further held in Para No. 4 of the judgment that liability of arrears of a previous contract cannot be put on subsequent purchaser of property. In M/s Esha Marbles Vs Bihar State Electricity Board and another, JT 1995 (2) SC 626 Supreme Court has held that there can be no charge over property and the electricity authority cannot seek the enforcement of contractual liability of the original defaulter against the third party who was a purchaser and sought reconnection.

10. In view of the above discussion and the above said citation of the Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 75,984 deposited by the complainant vide receipt Ex.C-2 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. The opposite party is further directed to issue the above said applied electricity connection to the complainant. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        16th Day of August, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member