Punjab

StateCommission

A/642/2018

PSPCL - Complainant(s)

Versus

veena kumari - Opp.Party(s)

gursharan kaur and sukhdeep kaur

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.642 of 2018                                                      

Date of institution  :  16.11.2018

Reserved on           :  01.04.2019       

Date of decision     :  08.04.2019

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its SDO (Operation), Sub Division, Mahilpur, Hoshiarpur.

…….Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Veena Kumari aged about 68 years wife of Inderjit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh, resident of Village Hajipur, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

……..Respondent-Complainant  

First Appeal against the order dated 13.9.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.   

Quorum:- 

           Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President

      Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member.                           

Present:-

          For the appellants     : Ms. Sukhdeep Kaur, Advocate.

          For the respondent   : Sh. Umesh Sharma, Advocate.

         

JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:

 

          The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 13.9.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short, “District Forum”) whereby the complaint filed by respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “C.P. Act”) was partly accepted and the appellants/opposite parties were directed to re-connect the electricity connection of the complainant bearing account No.H42A A270 297L and to pay ₹25,000/- as compensation, which included litigation expenses and other charges.  The compliance was ordered to be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.

Facts of the complaint:

3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is having NRS electric connection bearing No.H42 A A270 297L in her shop at VPO Mahilpur, Jaijon Road, District Hoshiarpur.  The said connection is in the name of Subhash Rani wife of Kamal Kumar (the previous owner) from whom the complainant had purchased the said shop, vide registered sale deed dated 6.2.2008 including the electric connection in dispute.  Since the date of purchase of the shop the complainant is using the electricity and the complainant is regularly paying the electricity consumption charges till the last bill for the month of February 2018. The opposite parties have disconnected the electricity connection in dispute without any prior notice or reason on 26.02.2018. However, the complainant received one letter issued by opposite party no.2 in the name of Subhash Rani and from the said letter the complainant came to know regarding the reason of disconnection. The reason mentioned in the impugned letter dated 26.02.2018 for disconnection is also not factually correct. There is neither any other electricity connection in the name of the complainant or Subhash Rani (previous owner) nor there is any other complex as alleged. It is further averred that the electric connection bearing no.AA27/298 is neither in the name of the complainant nor in the premises of the complainant. The said connection has no concern whatsoever with the complainant. The opposite parties straightaway disconnected the electric connection of the complainant which is totally illegal and unlawful. The opposite parties have neither sent any notice/intimation nor followed any set procedure before disconnecting the connection in dispute. The act and conduct of opposite parties not only amount to adoption of unfair trade practice but also against the principle of natural justice. The complainant has been harassed mentally and physically due to the said act and conduct of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are deficient in service by disconnecting the connection in dispute without any prior notice and the complainant has been deprived of electricity since 26.02.2018 from the date of disconnection. The complainant had to hire generator set on rent @ ₹500/- per day from 27.02.2018 in order to get electricity in her premises. The complainant approached opposite parties many a times for re-connection of the electric connection, but all in vain. Due to that reason, the complainant suffered mentally as well as physically in the hands of opposite parties and even there is deficiency in the service on the part of opposite parties.  On these premises the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum for issuance of directions to the opposite parties to reconnect the electric connection in dispute and also to pay ₹500/- per day as expenses of generator set from 27.02.2018 (wrongly mentioned as 27.2.2017) till re-connection and ₹30,000/-, as compensation along with ₹15,000/-, as litigation expenses.

Defence of the opposite parties:

4. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed joint reply taking preliminary objection that as per ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide a complaint involving disputes of 'Theft of Energy', hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, electricity connection bearing No.H42A A270 297L in the name of Subhash Rani is admitted. The opposite parties further alleged that there are two shops existing in one premises, where two electric connections bearing account No.H42A A270 297L in the name of Subhash Rani and there is another electric connection No.AA27/298 in the name of Rita Rani W/o Rajesh Kumar. The complainant might have purchased the said shop from Subhash Rani, but the opposite parties were not informed about the said transaction of sale. Under the law and rules of PSPCL, the purchaser has to apply for change of the name of the ‘consumer’ by observing some formalities and payment of required fee to the PSPCL, but the complainant has failed in her duty to do so. The dispute arose from the fact that the other consumer in the same premises was found stealing energy by tempering with the meter bearing No.AA27/298 in the name of Rita Rani by the enforcement staff of PSPCL headed by Senior XEN Enforcement Hoshiarpur, during its raid conducted on 8.1.2018 and the electric meter was removed in the presence of representative of the consumer, vide MCO No.131/48755 dated 08.01.2018. Representative of the complainant, Rita Rani; namely, Ramandeep Singh gave his written consent that meter be checked and verified in the M.E. Lab, Hoshiarpur, and the consent letter is placed on the file. Thereafter, M.E. Lab checked the said meter and found the same tampered with to commit theft of energy and after receiving the said checking report a bill/show cause notice dated 10.01.2018 was issued to Rita Rani which was received by her representative Ramandeep Singh and he was asked to pay an amount of ₹2,05,159/- along with compounding fee of ₹45,000/-. Even opposite parties got registered a case of theft of energy under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, vide FIR No.56 dated 23.01.2018 in Anti Power Theft, Jalandhar. The said FIR case was registered against the actual user, who had purchased the said shop from Rita Rani and the police made Ramandeep Singh as accused and thereafter, said Ramandeep Singh, vide written request deposited a sum of ₹70,000/- assessed by the PSPCL in instalments. Then again on 26.02.2018 enforcement wing of PSPCL, Hoshiarpur, again raided the premises of Ramandeep Singh/Rita Rani from where theft was detected and found Ramandeep Singh obtaining unauthorised supply of energy from electric connection No.AA27/297 which belongs to Subhash Rani.  The show cause notice was issued to Subhash Rani on 26.02.2018 and electric connection was temporarily disconnected, vide TDCO No.32/188/26.02.2018 which is evident from checking report dated 26.02.2018. All other averments made in the complaint have categorically been denied and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

Finding of the District Forum:

5. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, partly accepted the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

Contentions of the Parties:

7.      It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties that the electric connection in question was being used by one Ramandeep Singh and the same was in the name of Subhash Rani.  The said connection was checked by the Enforcement Wing of the opposite parties and they caught red handed stealing the electric energy from the other connection. Since the electric connection was being used by Ramandeep Singh unauthorisedly, then certainly the jurisdiction of the District Forum in such cases is barred in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Anish Ahmad” reported as III(2013) CPJ 1 (SC). The District Forum ignored the report of the enforcement staff and only accepted the complaint on the ground that no independent witness was joined.  The complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and it is the case of theft of electricity and, as such, in view of the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  It was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

8.      Per contra, it was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant had purchased the shop in question from its previous owner; namely, Subhash Rani, vide registered sale deed dated 6.2.2008 including the electric connection in dispute and since the date of purchase of the shop the complainant is using the electricity and has been paying the electricity consumption charges regularly.  Therefore, the complainant being the beneficiary is a ‘consumer’ under the C.P. Act.  The complainant was not indulged in theft of any electric energy and no independent witness has been joined by the opposite parties.  The District Forum has passed a well reasoned order after duly appreciating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence in support of those pleadings led by them.  There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum.  A prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs was made.

Consideration of Contentions:

9.      We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

10.    The admitted facts are that the property in question along with electricity connection was purchased by the complainant from its previous owner Subhash Rani, vide Ex.C-2 but no details of electric connection had been given in Ex.C-2.  The other electricity connection bearing No.AA27/298 was purchased by Meenakshi Kumari from its previous owner Rita Rani. Both the electric connections were disconnected by the opposite parties on one ground or the other. The case of the opposite parties is that though the shop in question was purchased by the complainant from its previous owner but she had not got transferred the electric connection in her name even after the lapse of 10 years and no intimation regarding the purchase of the electric connection by her was ever given to the opposite parties. 

11.    Instruction No.30.4 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 2017 reads as under:-

“30.4 In the event of transfer of a property, the transferee shall submit an application in form PCL-CON along with A&A form and the following documents:-

1. Letter of consent of the previous owner for transfer of connection;
2. In the absence of a letter of consent, the transferee shall provide proof of ownership of premises.  In case of partition, details thereof or a family partition deed if any, may be submitted.
3. In case the consent of the previous owner for transfer of the Security (consumption) cannot be produced, the applicant shall deposit Security (consumption) and Security (meter) at prevalent rates.  He shall also be liable to pay the outstanding dues, if any, of the previous consumer;
4. In the case of land having an AP/AP-High-tech connection being jointly owned by more than one person and a part of the land along with the AP/AP-High-Tech connection thereon being sold, the connection may be transferred in the name of the purchaser if all the co-sharers consent to such transfer and submit an affidavit duly attested by a Magistrate to that effect;
5. In the event where benefit of agreement for a connection is assigned to another person without the approval of the PSPCL, a notice shall be served upon the consumer requiring that transfer of the connection be sought as per the procedure prescribed above within 30 days of the service of notice.   The connection shall be liable to be disconnected in case no application is submitted to the Distribution Licensee within the period indicated in the notice.”

A perusal of the above instruction reveals that on the transfer of the property the transferee shall submit an application to the opposite parties for the transfer of the electric connection installed in that property and in the absence of such transfer the running of that electric connection would be unauthorized and the electric connection would be liable to be disconnected.  In the present case even if it is presumed that the connection was purchased, even then the same was required to be transferred in her name within 30 days from the said purchase.  The sale deed is of 2008.  The connection has not been got transferred till date.  No evidence has been produced on record by the complainant that such application for transfer of the electric connection in question was ever submitted by her to the opposite parties. Therefore, it is held that the electric connection was being run by the complainant in the said premises illegally and unauthorisedly.  We are of the firm view that it is a case of unauthorized use of electricity from the meter in question, which was said to be of the complainant on account of the fact that she had purchased the said premises from Subhash Rani, though it was still existing in her name even after passing of the period of 10 years. 

12.    Moreover as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anish Ahmad’s case (supra) the jurisdiction of the District Fora in case of theft of electricity or unauthorized use of the electricity connection is barred and the complaint is not maintainable before Consumer Fora.

13.    In view of these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is against law and evidence on record.

14.    Resultantly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside.  The complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum is dismissed; being not maintainable. 

15.    The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellants/opposite parties, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties.

 

                                                                                     

 

        (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL)

                                                            PRESIDENT

 

         

 

                                                          (KIRAN SIBAL)                    

                                                            MEMBER

April 08, 2019

Bansal