Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/50

Rajbir Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Mayank Malhotra

16 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/50 of 2.3.2015

                                      Decided on:         16.7.2015

 

 

Rajbir Kaur aged about 45 years wife of Sh.Satnam Singh, resident of H.No.15, Hassanpur Parohtan Part-II, Sirhind Road, Patiala.

         

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1.      Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office: The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2.      The Assistant Executive Engineer West(Commercial)North Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………….Ops

 

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                                     

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:    Sh.Mayank Malhotra, Advocate

For Ops:                        Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate            

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is alleged by the complainant that she is a consumer of domestic electricity connection bearing account No.3000316211 having a sanctioned load of 2KW and the same was installed on 28.5.2013.
2. The husband of the complainant purchased house No.15 situate at Hassanpur Parohtan Part-II, Sirhind Road, Patiala, vide sale deed dated 20.9.2007 from one Darshan Singh. The husband of the complainant got the electricity connection No.3000027532, installed in the said house. The husband of the complainant was not aware about any dispute between his vendor Darshan Singh and his daughter-in-law Smt.Jasbir Kaur. Ultimately, the husband of the complainant had to file a civil suit against Smt.Jasbir Kaur, which was decreed on 26.9.2012.
3. Previously, the complainant alongwith her family had been residing in village Makboolpur Bhaini, P.S.Gharam, District Patiala. When the complainant took the possession of the house, no electricity connection existed in the same. It was applied by the complainant and the same was released to her on 28.5.2013. After having got the electricity connection installed, she had shifted to her native village due to some personal matters. She again shifted to the house in the first week of January,2015 and when she was handed over by her neighbours,  the bill dated 5.12.2014 for the period 25.9.2014 to 26.11.2014  for Rs.75,710/- including the arrears of the previous financial year, in respect of Rs.6546/- and arrears of the current financial year, in respect of Rs.18273/-. The bill also reflected the amount of Rs.47327/- towards sundry charges. She also found that her electricity connection was lying disconnected and on an enquiry , it was found that the same had been disconnected on 16.12.20014, due to non payment of the bill amount of Rs.75710/-.She deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- on 21.1.2015 and Rs.13657/- on 18.1.2015. The Ops, however, failed to restore the electricity connection despite the repeated requests made by the complainant as they were compelling her to deposit the sundry charges. She is ready and willing to deposit the current and previous financial year arrears and not the sundry charges. The act of the Ops in having not restored the electricity connection of the complainant is said to be illegal, null and void and violative of the rules and regulations of the Ops. She was not informed as to on what count the sundry charges of Rs.47327/- were charged nor any supplementary bill in that regard was issued. Therefore, she suffered the harassment as also the mental agony for which she is entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to set-aside the impugned bill dated 26.11.2014 in respect of the sundry charges; to restore the electricity connection of the complainant and to pay her a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation.
4. On notice, the Ops appeared and filed the written version. It is admitted by the Ops that the complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection bearing a/c no.3000027532, installed in her name. The husband of the complainant had not deposited the electricity bills regularly and therefore, his connection was disconnected on 23.7.2010 when an amount of Rs.58,120/- was outstanding against him.
5. The Ops have admitted the complainant having received the bill for the period 25.9.2014 to 26.11.2014 for Rs.75,710/-including the arrears of the previous financial year, in respect of Rs.6546/- and arrears of current financial year, in respect of Rs.18273/- as also Rs.47327/- towards sundry charges. Satnam Singh, husband of the complainant had paid Rs.10,000/-out of the said amount of Rs.58,120/- on 29.8.2013. Lateron the complainant had applied the connection in her name, which was released on 28.5.2013 but she failed to deposit the amount of the bill. The amount of the sundry charges  of Rs.47364/- of the previous connection was transferred to the account of the complainant on 14.11.2013  but she failed to deposit the same. A sum of Rs.10000/- only was deposited in the account of Satnam Singh on 20.11.2013.Thereafter, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.5000/- on 21.1.2015 and another amount of Rs.13657/- on 18.2.2015 . A sum of Rs.10,000/-, deposited in the account of Satnam Singh was deducted from the account of the complainant on 3.3.2015. Thus, an amount of Rs.37364/- is outstanding against the complainant as arrears of the previous connection of the premises in question. Under regulation No.30.15 of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters,2007, the complainant is liable to pay the amount of the previous connection. It is denied that the complainant was not informed as to on what count the sundry charges of Rs.47327/- were charged from the complainant. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. In support of her complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, her sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and her counsel closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of SDO Deepak Goyal of West Commercial Sub Division of the PSPCL,Patiala alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP13 and their counsel closed the evidence.
8. The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on the file.
9. Ex.C3 is the  bill dated 26.11.2014 for the period 25.9.2014 to 26.11.2014, issued in the name of the complainant in respect of the electricity connection  bearing a/c no.3000316211 for Rs.75,710/- showing the current cycle charges :Rs.3561/-;arrears previous financial years: Rs.6546/-; arrears current financial year:Rs.18273/- and the sundry charges : Rs.47327/-.
10. As per the plea taken up by the Ops, the amount of Rs.47327/- pertained to the electricity connection No.3000027532 pertaining to Sh.Satnam Singh, husband of the complainant, which was disconnected on 23.7.2010 because of the non payment of a sum of Rs.58120/- as reflected in Ex.OP1, the copy of the bill ledger pertaining to said Sh.Satnam Singh for the period 23.7.2010 to October,2010.
11. Admittedly, the complainant was released the electricity connection  bearing a/c No.3000316211 on 28.5.2013 i.e. much after the disconnection of the electricity connection No.3000027532.
12. It is the plea taken up by the complainant that after she got the electricity connection bearing a/c no.3000316211 installed in the premises on 28.5.2013, she had shifted to her native village and she again shifted to the house in question in the first week of January, 2015 when she was handed over the bill, Ex.C3 dated 26.11.2014 for Rs.75710/- by her neighbour. She has deposited a sum of Rs.5000/- on 2.1.2015 and another amount of Rs.13657/- on 18.2.2015, in respect of which she has produced receipt Ex.C2 ( a compact receipt) dated 21.1.2015 for the deposit of Rs.5000/- and dated 18.2.2015 for the deposit of Rs.13657/- in respect of electricity account no.3000316211. She has also produced in evidence Ex.C1, the copy of the receipt  dated 9.3.2015 regarding the deposit of Rs.10,000/- in account No.3000316211.Thus, it has been shown that she deposited an amount of Rs.28657/- pertaining to the current cycle  charges of Rs.3561/-, arrears of the previous financial year Rs.6546/- and arrears of current financial year Rs.18273/- as shown in the bill, Ex.C3 dated 26.11.2014 leaving the sundry charges of Rs.47327/-, which as per the case of the complainant, she is not liable to  deposit but even then the Ops failed to restore her electricity connection.
13. It is the plea taken up by the Ops that the amount of Rs.47327/- of the sundry charges of the previous connection was transferred to the account of the complainant on 14.11.2013 but she failed to deposit the amount. However, a sum of Rs.10,000/-were deposited in the account of Sh.Satnam Singh on 20.11.2013 .Thereafter, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.5000/- on 21.1.2015 and another amount of Rs.13657/-on 18.2.2015. An amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited in the account was deducted on 3.3.2015 from the account of the complainant to the credit of Satnam Singh.The complainant further deposited an amount of Rs.10000/- on 9.3.2015 thereby leaving a sum of Rs.37364/- the arrears of the bill pertaining to the previous connection.
14. It was submitted by Sh.Mayank Malhotra, the learned counsel for the complainant that under Regulation 30.13 of (Electricity Supply Code & Related Matters) Regulations 2014, it is provided: “If a consumer vacates any premises to which electricity has been supplied by a distribution licensee without paying all charges due from him in respect of such supply, or for the provision of any electricity meter, electric line or electrical plant, the distribution licensee may refuse to give him supply at any other premises until he pays the amount due and also may refuse to connect such premises either on request from existing consumer or on application for new connection by any person till all dues are cleared”.
15. Thus , it was submitted  by Sh.Malhotra, that in case there was outstanding an amount of Rs.47364/-, in respect of the electricity connection bearing a/c No.3000027532, pertaining to Sh.Satnam Singh, the husband of the complainant, in respect of same premises, the Ops should not have released the connection bearing a/c No.3000316211, in favor of the complainant before getting the arrears of previous connection installed in the name of Sh.Satnam Singh, deposited under regulation 30.13 but once the Ops released the connection in favor of the complainant, they had no power to transfer the arrears of the previous connection pertaining to Sh.Satnam Singh, in the account of the complainant, because no such provisions in this regard are found contained under Regulation30.13.
16. It   was   submitted  by Sh. Malhotra  that  the                    provisions   of regulation  30.15  cannot  be  applied  to  the               facts of the present case because the complainant  did not                     get the property by way of sale/inheritance from her husband      Sh.Satnam Singh .Regulation 30.15 provides  that, “In case of       transfer of property by sale/inheritance, the purchaser/heir shall be liable to pay all charges due with respect to such property and found subsequently recoverable from the consumer”. A perusal of Ex.C4, copy of the sale deed dated 20.9.2007 would go to show that Sh.Satnam Singh s/o Gurdeep Singh had purchased house no.15 Ranjit Nagar, Hassanpur Purohitan (Ranjit Nagar Tehsil & District Patiala) from one Darshan Singh s/o Inder Singh r/o of said H.No.15 Ranjit Nagar, Hassanpur, Purohitan, Patiala..Thus, the Ops could not take shelter of Regulation 30.15 to transfer the amount outstanding in respect of electricity connection bearing No.3000027532 in respect of Sh.Satnam Singh in the account of the complainant bearing No.3000316211.The complainant was not obliged to pay the amount of the sundry charges of  bill, Ex.C3 dated 26.11.2014.She has already deposited the other charges pertaining to current cycle charges i.e. Rs.3561, arrears previous financial year  i.e. Rs.6546/- and arrears current financial year i.e.18273/- vide receipts Exs.C1 & C2. Therefore, the Ops were obliged to restore the electricity connection bearing a/c no.3000316211 but they failed to do so, which resulted into the harassment suffered by the complainant. We accordingly accept the complaint and direct the ops to restore the supply to the electricity connection bearing a/c no.3000316211 within seven days on receipt of the certified copy of the order. It is the positive plea taken up by the Ops that they did not restore the supply to the electricity connection of the complainant because of the non payment of the sundry charges. Therefore, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-,which is inclusive of the amount of compensation on account of the harassment and mental agony suffered by her at the hands of the ops.

Pronounced

Dated:16.7.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                 Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                         Member                                  President