District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (Punjab) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Govt. House No. 16-D, Civil Station, Near SSP Residence, Bathinda-151 001 consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/136
Shri Ram
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
P.S.E.B
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA(PUNJAB) C.C. No. 136 of 8.5.2008 Decided on : 16.7.2008 Siri Ram S/o Sh. Munshi Ram, Baja Khana Road, Bhagta Bhai Ka, District Bathinda. ... Complainant Versus SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Bhagta Bhai Ka, District Bathinda. ..... Opposite party Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM:- Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member For the complainant : None For the opposite party : Sh. O.N Goyal, Advocate O R D E R. LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to recover the electricity consumption charges only for the period from 27.4.2007 to 14.3.2008 regarding electricity connections No. B-92P-340061Y and B-92BV85/0501 by way of taking meter reading and in case, any excess amount has been paid, its refund be given by way of adjusting the same in the electricity bill. 2. Version of the complainant as emanates from the complaint itself may be stated as under :- From 27.4.2007 to 14.3.2008 his house was lying locked as he and his family members were away on account of registration of criminal case No. 40 dated 27.4.2007 of Police Station Dialpura. Officials of the electricity Board also made report regarding the fact that house had been locked. He and other accused in the criminal case have been acquitted by the court. In these circumstances, aforesaid direction deserves to be given to the opposite party. An application dated 10.4.2008 was also moved by him to the opposite party with the request that maximum relief be given to him. 3. Opposite party filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; connection No. B-92P-340061Y is in the name of one Rajesh Kumar. Complaint has not been filed by him. He has not authorised the complainant to file the complaint. Complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file it for himself and on his behalf. Sanctioned load of the connection of Rajesh Kumar is 11.75 KWs which is for running the Atta Chakki; complainant is not consumer; he has not come with clean hands. From May, 2007 to April, 2008 when Meter Reader was going to take reading, Atta Chakki was found locked due to which reading could not be taken. Bills for the months of 5/2007 to 9/2007 were issued on average basis. From May, 2007 to September, 2007, Rs. 10,185/- were deposited on 14.8.2007 by the complainant. After adjusting this amount and by lessing charges, Rs. 4,900/- was the balance due against the complainant because opposite party demanded minimum charges @ Rs.95/- per KW per month. After adjusting the demand @ RS.95/- per KW per month, Rs.90/- became due towards the complainant in 9/2007 and after that by adding the charges for the period 11/2007 to 4/2008, an amount of Rs.9,000/- became due. This amount has been calculated after adjusting amount of Rs. 12,490/- which was deposited by Rajesh Kumar. Domestic connection No. B-92BV85/0501 is in the name of the complainant and sanctioned load is 7 Kws. Bills for 5/2007, 7/2007 and 9/2007 were issued on actual consumption. Rs.930/- were due in the month of 9/2007. Bills for the months of 11/2007, 1/2008 and 3/2008 were issued with 'C' code. Consumption was shown in the bills on average basis. In 3/2008 after calculating minimum charges @ Rs.31/- per KW per month, an amount of Rs. 2,627/- was deducted from the demand of Rs. 8,309/- and against Rs. 6,536/- regarding lock, average was adjusted qua demand of Rs.10,061/-. Now a sum of Rs. 3,650/- after adjusting the amount is due towards the complainant. All the adjustments to which complainant was entitled have been made. 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Siri Ram complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.4), photocopy of letter dated 10.4.2008 (Ex.C.2) and photocopy of judgement dated 14.3.2008 (Ex.C.3). 5. On behalf of the opposite party, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Paramjit Singh, SDO, photocopies of consumption data (Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.6)and photocopies of ledger (Ex.R.3 to Ex.R.5 & Ex.R.7 to Ex.R.9). 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite party. Apart from this, we have perused the record. 7. Complainant has placed on record his affidavits Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.4 reiterating his version in the complaint, copy of the judgement Ex.C.3 according to which he was one of the accused in case FIR No. 40 dated 27.4.2007 under section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and that he and others accused have been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. An application Ex.C.2 was also moved by him to SDO, PSEB, Sub Division Bhagta Bhai making request that only rent of the meter be charged from him from 27.4.2007 to 14.3.2008 on account of the fact that he and his family members were not staying in the house and house was lying locked. 8. As is evident from the perusal of the complaint, there are two electricity connections. One bears A/c No. B-92P-340061Y which is in the name of his son Rajesh Kumar. Another one bearing A/c No. B92BV8/0501 is in the name of the complainant. Connection in the name of Rajesh Kumar is for running Atta Chakki and its sanctioned load is 11.75 Kws. 9. Complainant is claiming the relief in the complaint regarding both the electricity connections referred to above. First question for determination is as to whether complainant has the locus-standi and competency to file complaint and seek relief regarding electricity connection bearing A/c No. B-92P-340061Y which is in the name of Rajesh kumar. The answer to our minds is in the negative. There is nothing on the record to show that Rajesh Kumar has given power of attorney or any other authority to the complainant to file complaint on his behalf. Admittedly, complaint has not been filed by him (Rajesh Kumar). Power of attorney given by the complainant to Sh. Ashwani Kumar Advocate has not been signed by Sh. Rajesh Kumar. No permission has been sought by the complainant from this Forum for filing the complaint on behalf of Rajesh Kumar as well under section 12(1)(c) of the Act. In these circumstances, complainant is not consumer qua electricity connection bearing A/c No. B-92P-340061Y which is in the name of Rajesh Kumar nor is he competent and authorised person to claim the relief claimed in it. 10. Now we come to the relief which has been sought by the complainant regarding electricity connection bearing A/c No. B92BV85/0501 which as per record on the file is in his name. In our view, complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint even regarding this connection. He simply seeks direction from this Forum to the opposite party to send the bill as per reading and that if any amount is found refundable, the same be adjusted in the bill. There is no allegation in the complaint that such request was made to the opposite party and he has declined it. 11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party conceded before us that the house of the complainant was lying locked. It has been averred by the opposite parties that bills for the months of 5/2007, 7/2007 and 9/2007 were issued on actual consumption basis and Rs.930/- were due in the month of 9/2007. In the bills for the months of 11/2007, 1/2008 and 3/2008 consumption was shown by way of taking average. In 3/2008 after calculating minimum charges @ Rs.31/- per KW per month, an amount of Rs.2,627/- was deducted from the demand of Rs. 8,309/- and against Rs. 6,536/- regarding lock average was adjusted in the demand of Rs.10,061/- and now a sum of Rs. 3,650/- after adjusting all the amounts is due against the complainant. Since house was lying locked, code 'L' was recorded in the bills and this fact is evident from the copy of the ledger Ex.R.7. Complainant claims that bill for the period 27.4.2007 to 14.3.2008 be sent to him only on the basis of actual reading. Since house was lying locked, the question of sending the bills on the basis of actual reading, does not arise nor does it sound to reason. Connected load concerning the connection of the complainant is 6.94 Kws. According to C/C No. 52/2007, minimum amount which is chargeable in domestic supply cases is Rs.31/- per KW. In such a situation, complainant cannot claim that bills be sent to him for this period only on actual consumption basis by way of taking the reading. As per Ex.R.6 copy of consumption data concerning the connection of the complainant, refund has already been granted and sum of Rs.3,650/- is still due. 12. When no deficiency has been alleged in the complaint nor otherwise proved, complaint is meritless. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned. Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh) 16.7.2008 President (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member 'bsg'
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
