BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

      Complaint No.189 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 10.07.2020

      Date of Decision: 22.11.2024

Gaurav aged about years son of Sh. Amrit Lal son of Sh. Gurdial Chand resident of 117, Sat Kartar Enclave, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd., The Mall, Patiala through its    Chairman.

2.       The A.E.E., Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. Model House, Sub Division, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       None for Complainant.

                   Sh. Dharamveer Singh, Adv. Counsel for OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that an electricity connection bearing account no.3001740493, in the name of Bachitar Singh is running in the house of the complainant bearing no.117, Sat Kartar Enclave, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar. The said house was purchased by the complainant and his family members vide registered sale deed bearing document no.8437 dated 28.02.2017 from the said Bachitar Singh. After the purchase of said house, the complainant alongwith his family shifted in the same house in the month of April 2017. At that time, the complainant found that the electricity meter is missing and on enquiry, the OP No.2 informed that the said electricity meter is sent to ME Lab for its checking and the complainant was receiving the electricity supply bills which were based on the average. The electricity supply bills were being sent to the complainant on average based as the meter was not in existence in the said premises and there was not any mentioning of consumption of units in all the electricity bills received by the complainant. The complainant was making the payment in good faith to clear all the electricity consumption bills. As the complainant was making the payment to the opposite parties and it is the complainant who is the actual user of the electricity supply after purchase of the house. Hence, the complainant is the consumer within the definition of the consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. In the month of January 2018, a new electricity meter was installed in the premises of the complainant and thereafter the electricity consumption bills were issued to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption of the electricity. In the month of May 2018, the OPs issued a bill cum show cause notice dated 25.05.2018 to the previous owner namely Bachitar Singh by which the OPs raised a demand of Rs.34,803/- on account of theft of energy case Similarly, an FIR bearing no.537 dated 09.06.2018, was also registered under section 135 of Electricity Act 2003 in the Anti Power Theft Police Station, Jalandhar against the said Bachitar Singh. As the theft was pertaining to the period before the registration of the sale deed in favour of the complainant and therefore, the demand was raised against Sh. Bachitar Singh and the FIR was also registered against him. Thereafter, as the previous owner has left the house in question and due to that reason, the OPs raised the demand from the complainant and added the said amount in the electricity bills issued to the complainant. Not only this, the OPs also be added the interest amount on the said arrears which the complainant is not liable to make the payment. The complainant approached the OPs and requested that the said demand of the amount is not relating to the complainant as the same belongs to the period before the purchase of the house in question and therefore the complainant is neither liable to make the payment of the said arrears of the consumption charges. The OPs now started threatening that in case the complainant will not make the payment of the amount in question alongwith interest, the OPs will disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant. The complainant tried to convince the OPs that he is not liable to make the payment and therefore the claim of OPs towards the complainant is totally illegal but the OPs are adamant to disconnect the supply of the electricity due to non-payment of the amount of Rs.34,803/- alongwith interest which the complainant is not liable to pay. Hence the demand of Rs.34,803/- raised by the OPs is totally illegal and against the principles as well as rules and regulations of the Electricity Board and therefore the complainant is not liable to pay this amount to the OPs. The demand of the OPs from the complainant leads to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed not to claim the demand of the amount of Rs.34,803/- as well as interest on the same from the complainant as the said arrear is pertaining to the period before the purchase of the house by the complainant and OPs further be directed not to disconnect the electricity connection running in the property bearing no.117, Sat Kartar Enclave, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by the complainant alongwith the cost of the complaint incurred by the complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and is infructuous as the charges levelled are on account of actual consumption charges of current bills charges plus that of unpaid arrears. The charges levelled are rightly and legally charged as per rules, regulations and instructions of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., as such there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is further averred that the complainant does not have any locus-standi to file the present complaint as one Sh.Bachitar Singh is the actual consumer of the OPs/ Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. As per record of the OP No.2, the electric connection Account No.3001740493 having sanctioned load of 4 KW. Moreover, the complainant has not got any change of name of the said electric connection in his name as per instructions of the respondents. It is further averred that this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint as the aforesaid electric connection is being running in the name of previous owner namely Bachitar Singh as admitted by complainant and the complainant is using the electricity from the aforesaid electricity connection. Moreover, the complainant should have approached the Dispute Settlement Committee a competent authority of the respondents to get his dispute settled or decided. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this  Forum, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, it is admitted that after purchase of the said house, the complainant alongwith his family shifted in the house in the month of April, 2017, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs only as none has appeared on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has proved on record the sale deed Ex.C1 alleging that he has purchased the house bearing No.117, Sat Kartar Enclave, Basti Sheikh Jalandhar. It has been alleged by him that when he took the possession of the house, no meter was there and he made representations number of times to the OP and he was informed that the meter has been sent to ME Lab for checking. It has further been alleged that after checking, it was found that there was a demand of Rs.34,803/- on account of theft of energy case and show-cause notice was issued to the previous owner namely Bachittar Singh. Thereafter, the amount was being added in the bills issued to the complainant without any fault of the complainant. He has further alleged that in the month of January, 2018 new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant and he is the consumer of the electricity connection.

7.                The complainant has proved on record the number of electricity bills, which were allegedly in the name of the Bachittar Singh, the previous owner. The complainant has purchased the house in the year 2017. Perusal of the bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-22 shows the dates of bill from 27.01.2017 to May, 2020. All these bills are in the name of Bachittar Singh. Though, he has alleged that he is using the electricity and is a consumer, but he has not produced on record the receipts of payment made to the OP of the bills. The new meter was allegedly installed in the premises in January, 2018. But the newly installed meter is also not in the name of the complainant. There is no document on the record from where it can be concluded that the complainant is consumer of the electricity connection installed in the premises. The complainant has alleged that he has been making request to the OP, when the meter was missing to install the meter, but there is no document on the file or representation on the file to show that he has ever made any representation to the OP nor he has made any request to the OP to transfer the electricity connection in the name of the complainant nor has ever made any request to the OP to install the new meter in his name on the ground that he has purchased the property and has become the owner of the property till the filing of the complaint. He may be owner of the house, but no document for the usage of the electricity connection has been proved on record.

8.                The case of the OP is that the meter was sent to the ME Lab and it was found that the meter was tempered and FIR was registered. This fact of registration of FIR is not denied by the complainant. The show-cause notice has been produced on record which shows that Bachittar Singh was issued a show-cause notice in which it has been mentioned that during the inspection, it was noticed that he was committing theft of energy by fraudulent means. It is proved that Bachittar Singh was found to have committed theft of energy and FIR under Section 135 of Electricity Act was registered against him. The complainant has alleged the deficiency in service by the OPs as they have wrongly added the consumption amount of the previous owner in his bill, but his contention is not tenable as he has not made any representation to the OP that he is not liable to make any such payment as this period does not belong to him and the amount should not be added in his bill, nothing has been done by the complainant. Even otherwise the amount added was in the name and account of Bachittar Singh and FIR was registered against him for theft of energy. There is no deficiency in service by the OPs. The show-cause notice was issued after the assessment of the meter in the ME Lab and the Consumer Protection Act do not have jurisdiction to entertain complaints against the assessment made under Section 126 or action taken under Section 135 of Electricity Act. The amount under challenge is regarding the assessment made and action taken under Section 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction and the complaint is not maintainable also. Thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

22.11.2024         Member                          Member           President