DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 330 of 15.11.2007<br /> Decided on : 28-02-2008 <br /> <br /> Tarsem Lal Goyal S/o Sh. Mehar Chand Goyal, aged 59 years, R/o 211, Veer Colony, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2.S.D.O. City Sub Division, P.S.E.B. Bathinda. ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Complainant in person <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Complainant through this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') seeks direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 50,000/- for monetary loss and mental agony; Rs. 1,000/- per day from the date his electricity connection was disconnected alongwith interest thereon and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Shorn of all details the version of the complainant is that he is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. PT-23/0157. He is paying the charges of the electricity consumption bills regularly. On 22.3.07 a sum of Rs. 5402/- was deposited by him against pending bill. Another sum of Rs. 3,000/- was deposited by him as advance payment for the consumption of electricity for bills which were yet to be issued. He alleges that concerned official of opposite party No. 2 has adjusted this amount of Rs. 3,000/- against bill of Rs. 5402/-. Bills dated 1.5.07, 19.6.07 and 31.8.07 were issued by opposite party No. 2 for Rs. 2470/-, 3540/- and 4710/- respectively out of which a sum of Rs. 2402/-, 2476/- and 3637/- respectively has been shown as arrears. He alleges that the amount of arrears shown in these bills is illegal and arbitrary. An application was moved by him on 4.10.07 to opposite party No. 2 for initiating departmental legal action against the cashier for embezzlement of Rs. 5402/- deposited by him. Instead of taking action, opposite party No. 2 has disconnected his electricity connection illegally, unlawfully and without any prior notice. This has been done with malafide intention to harass and humiliate him. Thereafter bill dated 2.11.07 amounting to Rs. 5910/- was issued showing Rs. 4807/- as arrears out of it. It is averred by him that in this bill demand of Rs. 248/- has been raised on account of sundry charges and allowances illegally and arbitrarily. Status of the meter shown in the bills is “O” means okay. Meter installed in his premises was changed without his consent. He alleges that act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file it; he has not come with clean hands and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits they admit that complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection. They deny that a sum of Rs. 5402/- was deposited by him on 22.3.07. There is no provision for getting the advance amount deposited for electricity consumption. Inter-alia their plea is that connection of the complainant was disconnected for non-payment of the bills since January, 2006. Meter was removed. Thereafter an application was moved by him on 22.3.07 for depositing Rs. 3,000/- as part payment and for making payment of the remaining amount upto 30.4.07. Taking lenient view order was passed for depositing the amount of Rs. 3,000/- out of Rs. 5402/- on the stub of electricity bill No. 58818. An order was also passed on the application for depositing Rs. 270/- as RCO and MMC Fees by Sh. Amit Garg RA. Complainant had deposited Rs. 270/- against receipt No. 411/93672. On the same day he had deposited Rs. 3,000/- with the cashier. Inadvertently cashier had issued receipt regarding deposit of Rs. 5402/- inplace of part payment i.e. Rs. 3,000/-. This fact had come to his notice when cash was counted. In the meantime complainant had left the place. After receiving the receipt of Rs. 5402/-, matter was brought to the notice of Sub Divisional Officer, P.S.E.B. on the same day. Entry No. 183-C regarding Rs. 5402/- was cancelled in the cash book. On the same day Rs. 3000/- paid as partial payment by the complainant were entered vide entry No. 234-C at 15.42 p.m. i.e. 3.42 p.m. in the cash book. New receipt regarding Rs. 3,000/- as partial payment was issued. Remaining amount of Rs. 2402/- was shown as due. Their employee Tar Singh was sent to the house of the complainant. Wife of the complainant was present at the house. Receipt of Rs. 3,000/- was given by him to her. He had demanded the receipt of Rs. 5402/- which was inadvertently issued. She had assured that her husband would handover the receipt of Rs. 5402/- in the office. Complainant has not delivered the receipt of Rs. 5402/- todate. Tar Singh has gone to the house of the complainant twice or thrice for receiving the receipt of Rs. 5402/- but complainant knowingly did not meet him. Their allegation is that complainant is black-mailing them although a sum of Rs. 5402/- was not deposited by him. He had moved an application for taking action against the cashier. Matter was enquired into and application was found false. They admit that bills for Rs. 2470/-, 3540/- and Rs. 4710/- showing Rs. 2402/-, 2476/- and Rs. 3637/- respectively as arrears were issued. They deny that the amount of arrears is illegal and arbitrary. Bill for Rs. 5910/- was issued on 2.11.07 showing Rs. 4807/- as arrears out of it. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), photocopies of payment receipts (Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-5), photocopies of bills (Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-8), photocopy of letter dated 4.10.07 (Ex. C-9), photocopy of letter dated 4.10.07 (Ex. C-10) and photocopies of bills (Ex. C-11 to Ex. C-12).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties photocopy of PDCO dated 1.12.07 (Ex. R-1), photocopy of application dated 22.3.07 (Ex. R-2), photocopy of Stub Receipt (Ex. R-3), photocopies of receipts (Ex. R-4 & Ex. R-5), photocopy of Cash book (Ex. R-6 to Ex. R-7), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. R-8), photocopies of Cash Book (Ex. R-9 to Ex. R-11), photocopy of application dated 3.10.07 (Ex. R-12), photocopy of application dated 10.10.07 (Ex. R-13), photocopy of application dated 11.10.07 (Ex. R-14), photocopy of Memo dated 11.10.07 (Ex. R-15) and affidavit of Sh. Raj Kumar Singla, S.D.O. (Ex. R-16) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. On 19.2.08 an application was also moved by the complainant for restoration of his electricity connection allegedly disconnected on 4.10.07 on the ground that is son is studying in 9th class and it is difficult for him to make preparation for annual examination. Reply of the application has been filed stating that complainant was fully aware of the fact that they were going to disconnect his electricity connection as he was defaulter. Connection was disconnected under the rules and he cannot take benefit of his own wrong.<br /> 7. We have heard complainant in person and counsel for the opposite parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 8. Complainant reiterates his version in the complaint in his affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 and is also relying upon copies of the receipts Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-5 vide which a sum of Rs. 5402/-, 3000/- and 270/- respectively has been shown to have been deposited by him. His submission is that due amount of Rs. 5402/- was deposited on 22.3.07. Apart from this, another sum of Rs. 3,000/- was deposited as an advance payment for consumption of electricity for which bills were yet to be issued. Rs. 270/- were deposited for restoration of the electricity connection as his electricity connection was already disconnected. Despite this, opposite parties have issued bills copies of which are Ex. C-6, Ex. C-7, Ex. C-8, Ex. C-11 & Ex. C-12 showing the amount of Rs. 2402/-, 2476/-, 3637/- 4807/- and 6013/- respectively as arrears. This act of the opposite parties is illegal. Even applications were also moved by him copies of which are Ex. C-9 and Ex. C-10 for taking action against the cashier who has not adjusted the amount of Rs. 5402/- in his account. Despite this, nothing has been done. He argued that his electricity connection has been disconnected on 4.10.07 without serving any prior notice and as such, it is liable to be restored.<br /> 9. Submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He is taking benefit on account of the fact that receipt regarding deposit of Rs. 5402/- was inadvertently issued by the concerned official.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 11. It is for the complainant to establish his version by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. Material questions for determination are as to whether complainant had deposited Rs. 5402/- and another sum of Rs. 3,000/- as advance payment towards electricity consumption for which bills were yet to be issued ? So far as affidavits of the complainant are concerned, they stand amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex. R-16 of Sh. Raj Kumar Singla, SD.O. P.S.E.B who has supported the version in the reply of the complaint on material particulars. There is not an iota evidence on the record that Sh. Raj Kumar Singla has any motive or enmity with the complainant to depose against him through his affidavit. Complainant does not allege that he has enmity with any other concerned officials of the P.S.E.B. Complainant admits that a sum of Rs. 5402/- was outstanding towards him concerning his electricity connection. Stance of the opposite parties is that electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected for non-payment of the bills since January, 2006. On the copy Ex. R-2 of the application moved by the complainant, permanent Disconnection Order has been shown to be dated 18.10.06. As per their plea he was defaulter since January, 2006. An application was moved by him on 22.3.07 making request that a sum of Rs. 5402/- is due towards him and that he is unable to pay this entire amount of the bill due to his family circumstances and that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- out of it be got deposited from him and that the remaining amount would be deposited by by 30th April. Further request was made that fee for reconnection be got deposited and his electricity connection be restored. Considering his request and taking lenient view, prayer was allowed. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- was ordered to be deposited out of Rs. 5402/- by one Amit Garg, Revenue Accountant as is evident from the Receipt Stub, copy of which is Ex. R-3 and the affidavit Ex. R-16. Mere fact that on the application copy of which is Ex. R-2 arrears have been shown as Nil does not mean that no amount was outstanding towards the complainant. To the contrary amount of Rs. 5402/- was due towards him and no other arrears was outstanding. This report on the application has to be interpreted in this manner. A sum of Rs. 270/- was ordered to be deposited towards reconnection charges. Accordingly, it was deposited on 22.3.07 by the complainant. Story of the complainant that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was deposited by him as advance payment for consumption of electricity which was yet to be consumed by him, does not sound to reason at all. On 22.3.07 he was making request through application copy of which is Ex. R-2 that out of the amount of Rs. 5402/-, Rs. 3,000/- be got deposited as he had some domestic problem and that the remaining amount would be deposited by him by 30th April. In such a situation, it could not be expected from him to deposit Rs. 5402/- i.e. the total due amount in lump-sum and further go to the extent of depositing another sum of Rs. 3,.000/- as advance payment. In case he was to deposit Rs.3,000/- as advance payment, he could make request for this purpose. There is no record/his application to this effect. Complainant could not show us any provision of law according to which in such like domestic connection, advance payment could be made by him. Complainant received bills dated 1.5.07, 29.6.07 and 31.8.07 in which opposite parties have shown Rs. 2402/-, 2476/- and 3637/- respectively as arrears. In case a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was deposited by him as advance payment, he must have raised hue and cry before the competent authorities of the Punjab State Electricity Board to the effect that the arrears have been illegally shown as no amount was outstanding and that Rs. 3000/- were deposited as advance payment. As per plea of the complainant an application was moved by him on 4.10.07 copy of which is Ex. C-9. Copy of this application placed on the record by the opposite parties is Ex. R-12. A perusal of this application reveals that complainant has not made mention regarding the deposit of Rs. 3,000/- as advance payment. Had the complainant shown the deposit of Rs. 8672/- in one go i.e. through one receipt, some weight could be attached to his version. Amount of Rs. 5402/-, 3,000/- and 270/- has been shown deposited through different receipts. In view of this and in view of his request through letter dated 22.3.07, his submission does not sound to logic at all. Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that Rs. 3,000/- were deposited but not as advance payment of electricity to be consumed.<br /> 12. Another question for determination is regarding the deposit of Rs. 5402/-. At the risk of repetition, it is again mentioned that complainant had moved application on 22.3.07 that he was unable to deposit the total outstanding amount of Rs. 5402/-. When it was so, how can complainant be believed that he had deposited Rs. 5402/- i.e. total outstanding amount due towards him as on the one hand he is moving the application making request and on the other he is claiming that amount was deposited by him. Opposite parties aver that infact a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was deposited out of the outstanding amount of Rs. 5402/- and that inadvertently receipt No. 183-C for Rs. 5402/- was issued. Complainant had gone with the receipt of Rs. 5402/-. Subsequently when cashier came to know when the cash was counted, receipt of Rs. 5402/- was cancelled and another receipt No. 234 for Rs. 3,000/- deposited towards partial payment out of Rs. 5402/- was issued which was delivered to the wife of the complainant by Tar Singh, an employee of the P.S.E.B. She could not handover the receipt of Rs. 5402/- to him as complainant was not at his house. Thereafter he did not return the receipt of Rs. 5402/-. Receipt of Rs. 5402/- has been shown to have been issued at 12.36 p.m. whereas receipt of Rs. 3,000/- has been shown to have been issued at 15.42 i.e. 3.42 p.m. They have been issued at different time. Had the complainant deposited Rs. 5402/- and Rs. 3000/- , there could not be so much difference of time in the issuance of the receipts.. After the fact came to the knowledge of the cashier, he cancelled receipt No. 183-C and made note in the cash book copy of which Ex. R-9 that in fact complainant has deposited Rs. 3,000/- and accordingly receipt No. 234 has been issued for Rs. 3,000/-. Ex. R-6 is the copy of the entries in the cash book which finds no mention of receipt No. 183-C because it was cancelled after the fact of its wrong issuance had come to the knowledge of the cashier. Ex. R-10 is the copy of the other entry in the cash book regarding the amount received on 22.3.07. A perusal of this document reveals that three entries were cancelled on that day. At the risk of repetition, it is again mentioned that complainant was receiving the bills from the opposite parties in which amount was being shown as arrears. In case amount of Rs. 5402/- was deposited by him towards the total outstanding amount on 22.3.07, he could raise din and noise after receiving the bills showing the arrears saying that nothing is due towards him as arrears after the deposit of Rs. 5402/- by him. Not to speak of this, an application copy of which is Ex. R-12 was also moved by the complainant alleging embezzlement of Rs. 5402/-. On its basis, matter was enquired into by the competent authorities. Cashier Surjit Singh had submitted reply to the S.D.O. and copy of the same is Ex. R-13. Ultimately after the probe was over, Assistant Engineer concluded that the version of the complainant is unreliable. Accordingly, letter was written by him to the Additional Superintending Engineer, copy of which is Ex. R-15. As per his conclusions, the version of the cashier has been believed. Ex. R-16 supports Ex. R-15 on all material particulars. In view the facts, circumstances and the evidence on the record, we have no hesitation in concluding that complainant has failed to establish that Rs. 5402/- were deposited by him on 22.3.07. In fact a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was deposited by him as part payment out of the amount of Rs. 5402/- which was outstanding.<br /> 13. Since Rs. 3,000/- were deposited on 22.3.07 out of Rs. 5402/- opposite parties have rightly shown a sum of Rs. 2402/- as arrears in the bill dated 1.5.07, copy of which is Ex. C-6. Complainant did not deposit this amount. Thereafter amount of the bills continued inflating on account of the fact that he did not deposit the amount. Ultimately, opposite parties disconnected the electricity connection on 1.12.07 as is evident from Ex. R-1 which is the copy of Permanent Disconnection Order. Contention of the complainant that no notice was served upon him before disconnection of the electricity connection cannot be accepted. Complainant has shown us the original bills copies of the front portions of which have been placed and proved on the record by him. He has not placed the complete copies of the bills i.e. of the front and back portions. A perusal of the original bills shown to us by the complainant himself reveals that important note has been given on the back of the bills that incase of non-payment of the amount, bill be treated as notice and that incase amount of the bill is not deposited within 21 days after the last date mentioned in it, connection would be disconnected without serving any further notice. Bill itself is a notice. Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that no opportunity was afforded to him before disconnecting his electricity connection. Since complainant has failed to deposit the requisite amount due towards him as shown in the bills issued to him from time to time, opposite parties were well within their right to disconnect his electricity connection. Accordingly, application moved by the complainant for restoration of electricity connection is dismissed.<br /> 14. In view of our foregoing discussion, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved. Complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 28-02-2008 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member