Punjab

Sangrur

CC/476/2014

Pawan Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rohit Jain

17 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  476

                                                Instituted on:    21.08.2014

                                                Decided on:       17.03.2015

 

Pawan Devi aged about 40 years wife of Kapil Devi son of Jiwa Singh, resident of Bilal Nagar, Adampal Road, Malerkotla.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary.

2.     AEE, SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division, City-I, Satta Bazar, Malerkotla.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

For Opposite parties         :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Pawan Devi, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by getting installed a domestic electricity connection bearing account number L32TS830250P with a sanctioned load of 0.74 KW and she has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the OPs, as such she is a consumer of the OPs.

 

2.             The complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill in the month of August, 2014 for Rs.14,530/- wherein the Ops have inserted an amount of Rs.12,102/- on account of sundry charges. As such, the complainant immediately approached OP number 2 and requested for withdrawal of the demand of Rs.12,102/-, but the Op number 2 refused to do so.   The complainant again approached Op number 2, but the OP number 2 told that in case of non deposit of the bill in question, her connection would be disconnected. It is further stated that the status of the meter of the complainant was OK. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the complainant was earlier receiving the bills between Rs.500/- to Rs.800/- only.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw/quash the demand of Rs.14,530/- raised through the bill in question and further claimed compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has no jurisdiction are taken up.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs under the connection in question.  On merits, it is stated that the husband of the complainant, namely Kapil Dev was also the consumer of the OPs vide separate electricity connection bearing account number TS-83/0330 which was declared as ‘P’ code and was disconnected due to non payment of electricity bills. The said connection was running in the same premises in which the connection of the complainant is running and an amount of Rs.12,102/- is due as arrears of consumption in the electricity account of Kapil Dev and the same has been charged in the account of the complainant.  As such, it is said that the demand is quite legal and genuine one.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

4.             In rejoinder, the allegations of the OPs in the written reply have been denied.  It is stated that husband of the complainant Shri Kapil Dev has already been died in the year 2008 and there is nothing due against him  and prior to the present connection, no connection was running in the premises of the complainant.  It is denied that there were any dues towards her husband Shri Kapil Dev.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 copies of bills, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-9 copies of receipts and Ex.C-10 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-3 copies of sundry register, Ex.OP-4 to Ex.OP-5 copies of ledger and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

       

7.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by getting installed electricity connection in question in her premises. It is also not in dispute that an amount of Rs.12,102/- was demanded from the complainant as sundry charges by adding the same in the bill for the month of August, 2014 of the complainant.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further vehemently contended that it is not open for the OPs to charge the account of some other account holder to the account of the complainant as admittedly, the above said amount was dues of one Kapil Dev, who has already died in the year 2008. On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the above said dues were relating to one Kapil Dev, husband of the complainant, who was using the electricity connection number TS83/330.  But, the OPs have failed to produce cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that on what count the said amount was due and why the amount was not earlier recovered from Shri Kapil Dev during his life time. Further the OPs have not produced on record any law/regulations entitling them to recover the dues of Rs.12,102/- of Kapil Dev from the complainant by raising the same in the current consumption bill of the complainant. Moreover, the demand relates to the year 2008 as Shri Kapil Dev has already died in the year 2008.

 

8.             Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the OPs are not entitled to recover such dues from the complainant and has cited Hans Raj vs. UHBVN Ltd. and another 2011(3) CLT 189, wherein sundry charges were demanded from the complainant after a gap of about eight years. It was held to be time barred. In the above case a ruling titled as Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking vs. Pophate Nursing Home and another reported in 1986-95 Consumer 497 (NS) has also been cited, wherein it is held that recovery of arrears for more than three years would be barred by limitation.  Moreover, as per Regulation No.124.1 of the Sales Regulations, the OPs are not entitled to charge this amount as it is clearly mentioned in regulation number 124.1 that in such cases, separate bills should be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges should not be clubbed in the current bills of the consumer. In the present case, the Ops have not bothered to follow their own regulations. In the circumstances of the case, we find that deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved.  The learned counsel for the OPs has not produced any law/regulations to the contrary.    

 

9.             In view of our above discussion and legal position explained above, we allow the complaint and direct Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.12,102/- raised through bill Ex.C-1. We further order the Ops to refund to the complainant the amount, if any, deposited by the complainant against the above said demand. Ops are also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

10.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 17, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member