DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 72 of 19-03-2007<br /> Decided on : 05-07-2007<br /> <br /> Bhura Singh aged about 72 years S/o Sh. Pritam Singh,R/o Village Rajgarh Kube, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2. A.E.E./S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, City Sub Division, Maur, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Complainant is resident of Village Rajgarh Kube. Electricity Connection bearing A/c No. RK-19/0081 was got installed in the residential house by Pritam Singh, his father. Pritam Singh has since died about 20 years ago. Thereafter complainant is using the electricity connection and is paying the electricity consumption bills issued from time to time. In this manner, he has inherited the electricity connection and is beneficiary thereof. Bill dated 18.2.07 for Rs. 14,670/- was received by him for the consumption of 82 units only. This amount includes Rs. 14447/- shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances without disclosing the actual nature thereof. On receipt of the bill, he had gone to the office of opposite party No. 2 to inquire about the inflated bill. Threat was extended by opposite party No. 2 to the effect that entire amount be deposited failing which the connection would be disconnected. Basis and nature of the demand of Rs. 14,447/- was not disclosed. He assails this amount as illegal, null and void, against law and facts and not binding upon him on the grounds that he is not doing any commercial activity and connection is being used for domestic purposes; no checking whatsoever was conducted by the officials of the opposite parties at any time nor was he indulging in theft of electricity; no show cause notice was served by the opposite parties upon him before raising the impugned demand, no opportunity of being heard was ever afforded and impugned demand has been raised straightway in the bill. His repeated requests for quashing impugned demand proved futile. He alleges that act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused him mental tension and agony. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to quash the impugned demand of Rs. 14,447/-; refund amount, if any got deposited under compelled circumstances alongwith interest @18% P.A. from the date of deposit till realisation; pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages for mental tension and agony and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complainant is not consumer as connection still exists in the name of Pritam Singh S/o Jagat Singh; 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; he is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct and it is false and frivolous. They admit that electricity connection bearing A/c No. RK-19/0081 is in the name of Pritam Singh. Inter-alia their plea is that Amarjeet Singh has purchased the house where this electricity connection is existing and he is in possession of it. He is utilizing the electricity and in this manner, he is beneficiary of the same. Amarjeet Singh is holder of another electricity connection bearing A/c No. SP-72/36 and is defaulter to the tune of Rs. 14,447/-. This amount is legally recoverable from him (Amarjeet Singh) as he has failed to deposit it despite repeated requests, reminders and personal visits. Accordingly defaulted amount has rightly been claimed through connection No. RK-19/0081 where Amarjeet Singh is presently residing. Separate notices No. 4233 and 4234 dated 23.12.06 were issued to Amarjeet Singh and Pritam Singh respectively. They refused to receive them. Subsequently, they were sent by post. According to them, demand of Rs. 14447/- is not illegal on the grounds mentioned in the complaint. They deny deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2) and photocopies of bills (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Surjit Singh, S.D.O. (Ex. R-1), photocopy of letter dated 4233 (Ex. R-2), copy of letter dated 23.12.06 (Ex. R-3) and photocopy of duplicate telephone bill (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of the parties. <br /> 6. Mr. Inderjit Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that complainant is not consumer as the electricity connection is in the name of his father Pritam Singh. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. Pritam Singh has died about 20 years ago and connection has not been got transferred by the complainant in his name. Infact Amarjeet Singh is residing in the house where connection No. RK-19/0081 has been installed and he is using the electricity connection and as such, he is beneficiary. Amarjeet Singh is defaulter to the tune of Rs. 14,447/- concerning another connection No. SP-72/36 which was in his name. That amount is legally recoverable. Hence, this amount is being rightly claimed through connection No. RK-19/0081 where Amarjeet Singh is presently residing. Separate notices, copies of which are Ex. R-2 & Ex. R-3 were issued to Amarjeet Singh and Pritam Singh respectively. As per condition No. 123.1 of Electricity Supply Regulations of the Board, every effort should be made to recover defaulted amount and such efforts should not be relaxed unless recovery is actually effected. He further argued that telephone connection No. 235203 is still existing in the residence of Amarjeet Singh where connection No. RK-19/0081 is running and copy of the telephone bill is Ex. R-4. His next submission is that the complainant has not produced any record to show that he is the beneficiary. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the authorities U.P. State Electricity Board (Now U.P. Power Corporation Limited) through its Chairman and others Vs. Syed Faiz-Ur-Rehman 2004(3) CLT 307, Keshav Babu Tare Vs. Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B. and another 2004(2) CLT 235, M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Akhtar Bi 2005(1) CLT 369 and Ashok Kumar Vs. S.D.O. Haryana Vidyut Parasaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr IV(2003) CPJ 57 (NC).<br /> 7. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant is residing in the house where electricity connection bearing A/c No. RK-19/0018 is running. Complainant is using this electricity connection being the son of Pritam Singh and as such he is beneficiary of the connection. Amarjeet Singh is not residing in his house nor house has been sold to him. Electricity Supply Regulation No. 123.1 is of no avail to the opposite parties in this case. Similarly telephone bill, copy of which is Ex. R-4 does not establish the version of the opposite parties. Authorities relied upon by the opposite parties are not applicable to the case in hand.<br /> 8. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 9. First material question for determination is as to whether complainant is consumer or not. Consumer has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. As per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act consumer also includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. Stance of the opposite parties in the reply of the complaint is that Amarjeet singh S/o Gurjeet Singh R/o village Rajgarh Kube has purchased the house where electricity connection No. RK-19/0081 is existing. House cannot be transferred in the name of another person without getting registered the Sale Deed from the competent authority. Opposite parties have not placed and proved on record any sale deed according to which house has been purchased by Amarjeet Singh and he is in possession of it. Affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Surjeet Singh, A.E.E./S.D.O according to which connection is being utilised by Amarjeet Singh and presently he is the active user and beneficiary of the connection stands amply rebutted with the evidence led by the complainant. Opposite parties had moved an application for cross-examination of the complainant or in the alternative for direction to him to answer the questions given in it. Application was allowed and complainant was directed to answer the four questions given in the application by way of affidavit. He has filed his affidavit before this forum on 15.6.07 giving the answers of the questions. He has stated in so many words that neither he nor his father has sold the house where electricity connection bearing A/c No. RK-19/0081 is existing, to any one or to Amarjeet Singh. He has further stated that Amarjeet Singh is not in physical possession of the house nor electricity connection is being used by him. He has denied that he is not in physical possession of the house in question. He has stated in clear terms that he is in possession of the house and electricity connection is being used by him. He has denied that telephone connection No. 235203 has been installed in the name of Amarjeet Singh in the house where electricity connection is running. Apart from this, Ex. C-2 is the affidavit of the complainant according to which he has no concern with Amarjeet Singh nor is he his relative. His father was the owner of the house. After his death, he is paying the bills so issued by the opposite parties. No doubt, opposite parties have proved the copy of the telephone bill Ex. R-4, but it does not prove that telephone connection No. 235203 has been installed in the house where electricity connection bearing A/c No. RK-19/0081 is existing. Onus to prove that house has been sold to Amarjeet Singh and he is using the electricity connection being beneficiary is upon the opposite parties. They have failed to prove it by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. To the contrary, complainant is the son of Pritam Singh deceased in whose name electricity connection No. RK-19/0081 is running. From the evidence no other conclusion can be arrived at than the one that complainant is using the electricity connection as beneficiary. Accordingly, he is consumer. In this view of the matter, we are fortified from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab in the case of Satpal Vs. P.S.E.B through its Secretary and Others 2006(2) CPC 137. It is applicable to the case in hand on all fours. In the case of Satpal Vs. P.S.E.B.(supra), connection was in the name of his father who had expired. Electricity bills were coming in the name of the deceased. Payment of the bills was being made by the complainant i.e. his son in that case being the actual user of the electricity supply in the house. It was held by the Hon'ble State Commission that he being the beneficiary would fall in the definition of consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by the opposite parties, they are distinguishable on facts. In the case of Satpal Vs. PSEB (supra), case of Syed Faiz-Ur-Rehman was also noticed by the Hon;ble State Commission, punjab and it was held that it is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Keshav Babu Tare Vs. Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B. and another (supra), meter was not in the name of the complainant and it was in the name of earlier occupant. Facts of that case were different and were not akin to the case in hand. In the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. SDO, Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Higam Ltd., & Anr (supra), Agriculture land was purchased alongwith tubewell run by electricity. Connection was still in the name of old land holder. It was in that situation, it was held that complainant has no locus standi to apply for reduction of load as he is not consumer. It is not so in this case. Rather complainant being legal heir and user of electricity connection is the beneficiary and as such is consumer.<br /> 10. Now question is as to whether opposite parties could raise the demand of Rs. 14,447/- by way of adding it in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill dated 18.2.07, copy of which is Ex. C-4. Reply to our minds is in the negative. As discussed above, complainant is the beneficiary of the electricity connection bearing A/c No. RK-19/0081. Amount of Rs. 14,447/- pertains to electricity connection bearing A/c No. SP-72/36. Opposite parties could not add this amount of Rs. 14,447/- in the bill dated 18.2.07 straightway without issuing a separate bill and affording opportunity of being heard to the complainant. There is no rule to shift one person's liability to another like in the present case. If any body defaults in making payment of his/her dues, Board can take recourse to law for realisation of its dues. It cannot approach a third person to make payment in default unless there is proof of any nexus between the two. Under the Law a citizen cannot be saddled with the liability of another consumer. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & another JT 1995(2) SC 626 has held that liability of one consumer cannot be thrust upon a third party. In this view of the matter we also get support from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission of West Bengal (Kolkata) in the case of C.E.S.C. Limited Vs. Ruma Banerjee 2005 CTJ 78 (CP)(SCDRC). No doubt Electricity Supply Regulation No. 123.1 empowers the Board to make all out efforts to recover the defaulting amount and as such efforts cannot be relaxed till the recovery is actually affected. This does not in any way authorise the Board to recover the defaulting amount of one consumer from another. Facts of the case of M.P Electricity Board Vs. Akhtar Bi (supra) were different from this case. In that case three service connections for electric supply were in one name. Charges of two service connections were paid whereas of one connection they were outstanding . It was held that Board was entitled to discontinue electric supply on the other two service connections for the purpose of recovering dues of the third power connection.<br /> 11. In view of our foregoing discussion, act of the opposite parties in adding the amount of Rs. 14,447/- in the bill dated 18.2.07 concerning electricity connection of Amarjeet Singh is certainly illegal, arbitrary, null and void and it amounts to deficiency in service on their part.<br /> 12. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. As per our discussion made, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw impugned demand of Rs. 14,447/- raised in the bill dated 18.2.07, copy of which is Ex. C-4. Illegal acts of the opposite parties must have caused the complainant mental tension and agony for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 1000/-. For this, we are fortified from the observations of Hon'ble State Commission of Madhya Pradesh in the case of J. Radhakrishnan Vs. A Basheera & Another 2001(2) CLT 225 wherein it has been held that award of compensation always involves some sort of speculation and it is very difficult to quantify the amount of compensation on a rationale basis. Complainant has not proved that any amount out of Rs. 14,447/- has been deposited by him or got deposited from him.<br /> 13. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 14. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Withdraw the demand of Rs. 14,447/- raised through bill dated 18.2.07, by way of showing it in the column of sundry charges and allowances pertaining to A/c No. RK-19/0081.<br /> ii) Pay Rs. 1000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of Act would carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realisation.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 05-07-2007 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br />