BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No.38 of 2008 Date of Institution:10.04.2008 Date of Service:09.05.2008 Date of Decision:28.08.2008 Kuljinder Singh (aged 35 years) son of Gurdial Singh, resident of village: Kokri Heran, Tehsil & Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala. 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban, Moga. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban, Moga. Opposite parties. Complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member Present: Sh.T.S.Gill, Adv.counsel for the complainant. Sh.R.K.Goyal, Adv.counsel for the OPs. (J.S.Chawla, President) Sh.Kuljinder Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala, through its Secretary and othersOpposite Parties (herein-after referred to as Board) directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.25083/- raised vide bill dated 9.2.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Kuljinder Singh complainant is a consumer of the OPs-Punjab State Electricity Board (herein-after referred to as Board) having domestic connection no.PB65/0380H with sanctioned load of 1.00 KW installed at his residential premises in the name of one Lal Chand. That the premises where the disputed connection has been installed was initially sold by Lal Chand son of Ganga Ram to one Kunda Singh son of Saun Singh vide registered sale deed dated 5.6.1992. Said Kunda Singh further sold the premises to the present complainant vide registered sale deed dated 4.4.2006. Since then the complainant has been using the said connection & paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That the complainant has received a bill dated 9.2.2008 in which the OPs-Board demanded Rs.25083/- on account of energy charges showing the consumption of 5180 units. That no prior notice has been sent by the OPs-Board for raising such excessive demand. That the said bill is just, imaginatory and totally wrong and against the rules of the PSEB. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of OPs-Board time and again to withdraw the illegal demand but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.20000/-as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs-Board and they appeared through Sh.R.K.Goyal Advocate and file written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum and that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. On merits, it was averred that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act as the electric connection in question has been installed in the name of one Lal Chand son of Ganga Ram with which the complainant has no concern. So the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs-Board and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs-Board. It was further averred that in fact, in December 2007 the bill was prepared on average basis due to inconsistent reading and the bill from 15.9.2007 to 14.1.2008 was sent to the consumer in February 2008 for 5180 units. Earlier reading was 6092 units and after completion of the round of circle of 10000, the reading was 1272 units. In this way, the consumer used 5180 units to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover the same. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same be dismissed. 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of sale deed Ex.A2 and Ex.A3, copies of bills Ex.A4 to Ex.A8 and closed his evidence. 5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar Sr.XEN, copies of ledger Ex.R2 to Ex.R4, copy of detail Ex.R5 and closed the evidence. 6. Sh.T.S.Gill ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.25083/- raised vide bill dated 9.2.2008 by the OPs-Board is illegal, void and against the rules & regulations of PSEB. 7. On the other hand, at the very outset, Sh.R.K.Goyal ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has mainly argued that the electric connection in question is installed in the name of one Lal Chand son of Ganga Ram resident of village: Ramuwala Harchoka, Tehsil & Distt.Moga, but the present complaint has been filed by Kuljinder Singh complainant who has no concern with said Lal Chand son of Ganga Ram the original consumer of the OPs-Board. Thus, the present complaint filed by Kuljinder Singh complainant is not maintainable. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has full force. Admittedly, the electric connection in question was installed in the name of one Lal Chand son of Ganga Ram who sold the same property/premises alongwith electric connection in question to Kunda Singh son of Saun Singh vide registered sale deed dated 5.6.1992. Thereafter, said Kunda Singh further sold the premises to the present complainant vide registered sale deed dated 4.4.2006. But even after a lapse of more than 2 years, Kuljinder Singh complainant has failed to get transferred the electric connection in question in his name for the reasons best known to him. Further, there is no iota of evidence on the record if the complainant has filed any application before OPs-Board for transfer of the said connection in his name. In this regard, section 2 (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, consumer means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purposes. Kuljinder Singh complainant has failed to prove that he becomes a consumer of the OPs-Board. 8. For arguments sake, if it is presumed that the complaint is maintainable even then the impugned demand is legal and valid and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. Admittedly, the complainant paid the consumption bills upto 6092 units and thereafter, the OPs-Board sent the bills to him on average basis of 249 units due to inconsistent reading. The consumption bill Ex.A7 further show that at that time the reading was 6092 units and thereafter, the OPs-Board charged the complainant for the period w.e.f. 15.9.2007 to 14.1.2008 and the bill in February 2008 for 5180 units because the earlier reading was 6092 units and after completion of the round of circle of 10000, the reading was 1272 units. In this way, the consumer had consumed 5180 units and the OPs-Board has legal right to charge him for the same. 9. To prove the aforesaid contention, the OPs-Board has produced affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar Sr.XEN, copies of ledger Ex.R2 to Ex.R4, copy of detail Ex.R5. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and other documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A8. 10. Ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue and other point before us. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla) Member Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:28.08.2008.
