Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/91

Geeta Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Azad Janeal

26 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 91 dated 11.02.2019.                                                Date of decision: 26.04.2022. 

 

Geeta Rani aged 58 years wife of Late Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Resident of House No.1105, Gali No.10, Near Khanna Dying Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Tajpur Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Managing Director.     
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, CMC Division (Special), Ludhiana through its XEN/SDO/Senior Executive Engineer.                                                                                               …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of the unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that her husband was holder of electricity connection bearing No.3002294398 which is installed in House No.1105, Gali No.10, Near Khanna  Dying, Guru ArjanDev Nagar, Tajpur Road, Ludhiana. Complainant’s husband died o 20.08.2013 and after this death, the complainant got transferred the said electricity connection in her name. Prior to his death, complainant’s husband Rajinder Kumar took one shop forming part of property bearing M.C. No.B-XXXI-1043 (old) and B-XXXI-7435 (new), Peerawali Gali, Gali No.8, Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Ludhiana on rent from Dharam Pal Singh son of Mohar Singh. There were four shops in the property of Dharam Pal Singh and out of which one shop was taken by Rajinder Kumar on rent. The electricity meter bearing account No.3002289522 was only installed in the shop which was taken on rent by the husband of the complainant. The husband of the complainant used to take electricity supply from the other shop of Dharam Pal Singh. In the year 2007-2008, Dharam Pal Singh disconnected the electricity supply of the said shop. Thereafter, Rajinder Kumar started using chargeable battery. The average consumption of the account No.3002294398 as per the previous bills was between Rs.1500/- to Rs.2500/-. The said connection is different from the connection bearing No.3002289522 which is in the name of Dharam Pal Singh. The complainant received a bill dated 04.06.2018 for Rs.26,790/-  from the OPs for reading from 05.04.2018 to 04.06.2018. After receiving the notice, the complainant was shocked to see that the OPs have illegally imposed sundry charges of Rs.23,470/- of another commercial meter No.3002294398 which is in the name of Dharam Pal Singh. The complainant approached the officials of the OPs and came to know that the sundry charges were imposed on the application moved by Dharam Pal Singh. On 22.10.2018, the complainant moved an application before the XEN of PSPCL for deleting the sundry charges from the bill. Thereafter, the complainant received another bill issued on 01.12.2018 amounting to Rs.38,410/- which is also totally illegal and wrong. The OPs have failed to disclosed as to how the sundry charges of other connection have been added in the bill of the complainant. Therefore, the impugned bill of Rs.39,178/- is illegal, null and void and the complainant is not liable to pay the same. The OPs have been threatening to disconnect the connection of the complainant due to non-payment of the impugned bill of Rs.39,178/- which is illegal. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to withdraw the illegal amount raised through bills dated 04.06.2018 of Rs.26,790/-  and bill dated 01.12.2018 for Rs.39,178/- and the OPs be further made to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable  nor there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. According to the OPs, the concerned officials of the OPs checked the defaulting premises where the meter No.3002289522 was disconnected due to non-payment of amount of Rs.23,474/- vide checking register No.1230/9 dated 24.04.2018. At the time of checking, it was found by the concerned official of the OPs and reported that the defaulting amount of Rs.23,474/- was still outstanding against the electricity connection No.3002289522. The meter had already been removed from the premises in question due to non-payment of the due amount. One Dharampal wrote a letter to PSPCL that the defaulting amount be imposed on account no.3002294398 as Rajinder Kumar had taken on rent one shop in the premises who had died. The family of Rajinder Kumar was consuming electricity from account No.3002294398 which falls in Mohalla Vishkarma Nagar, Ludhiana. It was further reported by the officials that on enquiry, the wife of Rajinder Kumar disclosed that Rajinder Kumar had taken on rent one shop where electric meter No.3002289522 was installed. Accordingly, on the basis of checking report, defaulting amount of Rs.23,774/- was demanded by the OPs from the complainant vide memo No.5295 dated 25.10.1998. Since the defaulting amount was relating to the husband of the complainant and as such, she was liable to pay the entire bill of Rs.39,178/- which includes of regular consumption charges. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as incorrect and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, complainant has submitted her affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C13 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Er. Sukhvir Singh, Senior Executive Engineer, CMC Division (Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 and closed the evidence.

5.                In this case, none has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 21.03.2022. We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the OPs and gone through the record and proceed to decide the case on merits.

6.                It has been pointed out by the counsel for the OPs that during the course of checking by the staff of the OPs, it was found that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.23,474/-  in respect of electricity account No.3002289522 which was installed in a shop which the husband of the complainant Rajinder Kumar taken on rent and at the spot, it was also found that the electricity was consumed by Rajinder Kumar, the husband of the complainant and his family members from the said account only i.e. 3002289522. It has also been categorically stated in the affidavit Ex. RA of Er. Sukhvir Singh, Senior Executive Engineer that the account No.3002289522 was disconnected and during the checking, it was found that a sum of Rs.23,474/- was outstanding in account No.3002289522. It was further found that Rajinder Kumar had taken one shop on rent from Dharam Pal Singh and the family members of Rajinder Kumar were consuming electricity from electricity account No.3002294398. On questioning, the son and the wife of Rajinder Kumar also confirmed that Rajinder Kumar had taken a shop on rent where electricity account No.3002294398. Accordingly, on the basis of checking report, the defaulting amount of Rs.23,474/-was demanded from the complainant as it related to the husband of the complainant. In the given circumstances, when it is evident from the report Ex. R1/Ex. C3 that the family of the complainant has been using the electricity from account No.3002294398  and the demand is based on actual consumption by the complainant and her family, the same cannot be said to be illegal, null and void.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Geeta Rani Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.                CC/19/91   

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   None turned up for the complainant today also. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 21.03.2022.

                   Arguments on behalf of the OPs heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.