DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.79 of 27.2.2007<br /> Decided on: 12.2.2008<br /> <br /> Bant Singh son of Garja Singh aged 58 years resident of Rane Majra, Tehsil Dera Bassi, Sub Division Handesra, District Mohali.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. P.S.E.B.through its Chairman.<br /> 2. SDO of P.S.E.B. Sub Division Lalru.<br /> <br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur, Member<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Ms.Mandeep Kaur, adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Smt.Puja Puri, adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant,Bant Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That the complainant has got a domestic electricity connection bearing account No.HF/0886-LU.That the complainant has been paying his electricity bills regularly and nothing remained due towards him. That the complainant received a bill in the month of August 2006 for a sum of Rs.66740/- for consumption of 155 units along with Rs.66328/-on account of sundry charges and allowances. That complainant further received a bill in the month of October 2006 showing consumption of 294 units and arrears of Rs.73410/- and another bill in the month of February 2007 showing consumption of 251 units along with arrears of Rs.75352/-.That the complainant has approached the office of opposite party No.2 enquired about the amount shown as sundry charges and allowances or arrears in the bills issued in the month of August 2006, October 2006 and February 2007.That there was nothing due towards complainant and no notice as such was ever given to the complainant. That the complainant is a poor man and the connection in question is a domestic one and is installed at complainant’s residence and the average consumption of electricity for each billing cycle varies between 150 to 300 units. That the complainant approached SDO, Handsera but of no avail. That due to the act and omission and negligence of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental tension, mental agony, harassment, which cannot be compensated in monitory terms but the complainant claims a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on the said account. That the opposite parties have issued wrong bills knowingly and illegally just to harass the complainant and to coerce him to meet their illegal demand. That the complainant visited opposite party No.2 and requested him to do the needful but the opposite parties refused and instead threatened the complainant with disconnection. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. The issuing of a bill for a sum of Rs.66740/-to the complainant is an admitted fact but it is denied that the same is issued for consumption of 155 units of electricity. The true facts of this case are that the complainant Bant Singh is the son of Garja Singh. They have the electricity connection in dispute in the name of the complainant and other connection bearing account No.JAP 418-A is also being used in the same premises in the name of Bant Singh and the said connection is of APcategory.Both the connections fall within the jurisdiction of Handesra Sub Division. The father of the complainant namely Garja Singh is the consumer of the Board of A/c No.LK34/1934 DS, which falls in the Lalru Sub Division. Both Bant Singh and Garja Singh are residing in the same premises as family members jointly and are using the electricity supply of all the connections jointly.Garja Singh is the defaulter of the connection in dispute of 1039 units of electricity. The board had disconnected the connection of the consumer namely Garja Singh on 20.8.2005 vide PDCO No.30/39672 dated 8.8.2005 against the defaulting amount of Rs.8592.The said PDCO was affected at the reading of 15744 units. The complainant was issued the final bill after permanent disconnection. The complainant had not deposited the energy bill of rs.4575/- which was issued in 3/2005,Rs.8592/-, which was issued in 5/2005 and Rs.13467/- which was issued in 7/2005.The connection of the complainant was disconnected on 20.8.2005 at the reading of 15744 units. The complainant was issued the energy bill ofRs.66208/- after the disconnection of the connection of A/c No.LK34/1934 of Garja Singh on 20.8.2005.The said amount has been charged from the complainant as he was using the supply of connection bearing A/c No.LK34/1934 alongwith father Garja Singh being the son of Garja Singh. The demand has been raised as per rules and regulations of the Board. The complainant is liable to make the payment of the same along with Rs.4064/-as surcharge for not making the payment within the stipulated period as has been prescribed by the Board. The amount has been rightly charged by the Board. The said amount has been charged from the complainant by adding the current consumption bill of 294 units relating to the connection bearing Account No.HF54/0886-LU and also include the defaulting amount of connection bearing A/cNo.LK34/1934 amounting to Rs.66208/-.It is denied that nothing was due against the complainant for which the demand has been raised by the Board. The complainant has used the electricity of the connection for which the demand has been raised and the complainant can not be absolved from its liability to make the payment of the amount for which the demand has been raised. It is denied that the complainant has suffered in any manner .It is denied that the bills issued to the complainant are illegal or the same were issued to harass the complainant or the complainant is entitled to any compensation as has been claimed. The Board has the right and authority to take the action against the consumer in case the electricity charges bills are not deposited by the consumer. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CW1/A and copies of bills,Exs.C1 to C3.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.R1 of Paramjit Singh,SDO, affidavit,Ex.R2 of Raj Kumar, Meter inspector, report of meter inspector,Ex.R3, billing ledger,Ex.R4,billing ledger,Ex.R4/1, bill ledger,Ex./R4/B, detail,Ex.R5 and copy of PDCO,Ex.R6.<br /> 6. The parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 7. The sole question which needs decision in this case is as to whether as per rules of the opposite parties the amount outstanding against one connection could be added in the bill of another connection even if the demand related to the same consumer.<br /> 8. The complainant had challenged the demand of Rs.75352/- made by the opposite parties which according to the complainant had been illegally added to his account.<br /> 9. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has not been able to show us any law which permitted the amount outstanding against one connection that could be added in the bill of another connection if the demand related to the same consumer.<br /> 10. It is an admitted case of the opposite parties that the demand in dispute relates to another connection bearing account No.LK34/1934 of Garja Singh father of the complainant and the same was added to the account of the complainant. The demand made by the opposite parties to the connection which was in the name of Garja Singh. As per rules of the opposite the amount outstanding against one connection cannot be added to the bill of the another connection even if the demand relates to the same consumer. On this point we are supported by the authority P.S.E.B. Vs. Gurjit Kaur 2004(1)CLT 622.<br /> 11. That being so it is held that the disputed amount could not be added to the account of the complainant. Therefore, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is accordingly allowed partly. As such the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the disputed demand raised against the account of the complainant and issue fresh bill of actual consumption of complainant and to pay Rs.1000/-as costs of the complaint to the complainant. Compliance of this order be done within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:12.2.2008.<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />