Complainant Himanshu Arora has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to recover Rs.46,738/- demanded through bill dated 31st Oct.2019 alongwith interest till date from opposite party no.3 and not to recover the entire bill amount from him as he was already paid actual consumption bill on the instructions of opposite parties no.1 and 2. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.30,000/- as damages for illegal harassment, physical and mental agony and deficiency in service in the interest of justice. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 be next directed to restrain from disconnecting his electric connection no. 3003309127 till the decision of case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he alongwith Dheeraj son of Hira Lal purchased double story house from opposite party no.3 vide Registered sale deed dated 23.9.2015. After purchasing the abovesaid property, he applied for issuance of electric connection and opposite party no.1 installed an electric connection bearing Account No.3003309127 in his name. After purchasing the house, he got released electricity connection in his name and uptill May 2019 he is making payment of electricity bills regularly for the consumption of electricity. He has further pleaded that to his utter surprise, the opposite party no.1 and 2 have issued bill in the month of May 2019 for Rs.42,890/- and out of this the amount of Rs.40037/- was shown as sundry charges and amount of Rs.990/- was shown as arrears. Thereafter, he approached opposite party no.1 and 2 and requested for rectification of the bill and accordingly his request was accepted and opposite party no.1 and 2 accepted only consumption bill and did not charge sundry charges and thereafter the opposite party no.1 and 2 have again issued bills in the month of July, Sep. and Nov. 2019 in which again sundry charges and arrears were still there. After inquiry, it transpired that amount was outstanding against opposite party no.3 since 2013 under case no.174 dated 06.03.2013. Thereafter, he again approached opposite party no.1 and 2 and requested to recover the abovementioned amount from opposite party no.3 and also requested the opposite party no.3 to make disputed payment, but they did not pay any heed for his request. Complainant is not liable to make payment of Rs.46,738/- and even he was already made the payment of the remaining amount subtracting the amount payable by opposite party no.3, but opposite party no.1 and 2 are adamant to recover the entire amount from him. He has next pleaded that he has also sent a email and legal notice to the department of opposite party no.1 and 2 and requested them to do the needful and also sent reminder to them, but all in vain. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply submitted that the premises where this connection has been installed in the name of complainant was jointly checked by the AAE East Sub Division and AAE South Sub Division of PSPCL Batala vide LCR No.80/13 dated 06/03/2013 where the construction work was being carried out but no electric connection was found installed there. A detailed report has been mentioned in the checking. After summing up the penalty for this theft of electricity a Memo No.174 dated 06.3.2013 for an amount of Rs.82,436/- was issued in the name of Harkishan Mahajan resident of New Diamond Colony, Opposite Kothi No.2 Batala but none paid the same. It was next submitted that later on a new DS electric connection bearing Account No.3003309127 was got installed by the complainant in some portion of the abovesaid premises. Vide LCR No.1583/24 and LCR No.1583/25 dated 18.3.2018 the abovesaid premises was again checked by the then SDO of South Sub Division PSPCL, Batala and it was noticed that the meters of Account No.3003309127 and 3004732899 were affixed on a Pole and the building is under construction without installation of any temporary electric connection for construction purpose. It has also been mentioned in the checking reports that there might be the amount of theft penalty already imposed regarding the same premises which remains unpaid so far. The checking reports were prepared at the spot and were signed by the SDO and other members of checking party including the area JE etc. This matter was related with unauthorized use of electricity (UUE). It was further submitted that later on it was noticed that the previous balance regarding theft of electricity committed in this premises vide checking dated 06.03.2013 has not so far been deposited. As such the total amount of Rs.82,436/- was spitted into two parts, one part of which was put in the Account of Connection No.3003309127 in the name of complainant Himanshu and the remaining ½ part was put in the account of electric connection No.3004732899. The complainant Himanshu has deposited some amount and is in arrears of Rs.40037/- which is in dispute. Complainant has deposited the penalty imposed for the second checking dated 18.03.2018 for UUE and is only outstanding amount towards him is Rs.40037/- for theft of electricity vide checking dated 06.03.2013. The complainant has moved an application on 13.05.2019 to the opposite party no.1 requesting therein to deposit 1/3 amount of the Rs.82,436/- instead of ½ share. The amount in dispute relates to the theft of electricity and the same is required to be deposited. Later on this amount was added in the account of complainant to enable him to deposit the same. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Opposite party no.3 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and is the guilty of suppression of material and real facts from the Hon’ble Commission; the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it was admitted that opposite party no.1 and 2 did not raise any kind of objection regarding any kind of arrears/bills pending against the opposite party as there was no due of any amount from the opposite party. Infact no amount was due and payable by the opposite party to the Electricity Department. Hence the entire story as alleged in the complaint is absolutedly false, frivolous, baseless, imaginary and afterthought. Actually, the complainant under the garb and guise of the present complaint wants to grab the amount from the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16.
6. Alongwith the written statement opposite party no.1 and 2 filed affidavit of Er.Harjit Singh SDO, PSPCL Ex.OP-W-1,2/A and other documents Ex.OP-1,2/1 to Ex.OP-1,2/6.
7. Alongwith the written statement, opposite party no.3 filed his own affidavit Ex.OP-3/1 and photocopy of bill Ex.OP-3/2.
8. Rejoinder filed by the complainant.
9. Written arguments have been filed by complainant.
10. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the complainant; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
11. Present complainant is a bonafide subsequent purchaser of built up house and it is an admitted case of opposite party that the impugned demand relates to year 2013 on the basis of some alleged checking of 2013 of the premises/plot belonging to previous owner Sh.Harkrishan. One fails to understand as to what prevented the PSPCL officers/officials from recovering the impugned amount from the previous owner i.e. Sh.Harkrishan son of Sh.Om Parkash who was actually liable to pay as per PSPCL checking to pay the amount.
12. PSPCL remained in deep slumber for about five six years and never took serious steps to recover the amount from the wrong doer.
Now after the gap of six years they cannot be allowed to recover the same from bonafide subsequent purchaser in an arbitrary manner.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, we partly allow the complaint and the demand raised from the complainant by opposite party is hereby set aside. Further opposite party is directed to refund the amount, if any deposited by the complainant on this account. Besides this, opposite party shall pay in lump sum to complainant as compensation on account of harassment and litigation expenses an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The compliance of these orders be made by opposite party within 45 days from the receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay entire awarded amount alongwith 9% interest from the date of orders till the actual realization.
14. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
15. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (Raghbir Singh Sukhija)
May 05, 2022 Member
*MK*
