DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.139/8.9.2008 Decided on : 25.02.2009 Smt. Dalip Kaur wife of Sh. Harnek Singh son of Sh. Natha Singh, Ward No. 5, Link Road, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through its Chairman. 2.Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through SDO(City), Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. M.L. Jindal, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. H.S. Sadhuwala, Advocate counsel for Opposite Parties. Quorum: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Smt. Dalip Kaur wife of Harnek Singh, resident of Mansa, has filed this complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(in short called the 'Act') against the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter called as the board), through its Chairman and SDO( Urban), Mansa for seeking correction in electricity bill dated 5.2.2007 drawn in the sum of Rs. 75114/- and restoration of electric supply to her house and payment of a sum of Rs. 20000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment. As per averments in the complaint, the case of complainant, may briefly be described, as under: Contd.......2 : 2 : 2. That electric connection, bearing Account No. LR-36/0784, is installed, in the house, of the complainant in the name of Mrs. Nirpal Kaur, her predecessor-in-interest from whom she has purchased the house, vide sale deed No. 1719 dated 24.5.1989. Since then the complainant, is in occupation thereof, and has been regularly making payment of amount of electricity bills, drawn on her. On 5.2.2007 opposite parties have served notice upon the complainant raising demand of Rs. 75114/- which is illegal and arbitrary because no amount is outstanding against the complainant. On 6.4.2007 the opposite parties have sent bill in the sum of Rs. 64350/-. On being approach by the complainant they reduced the amount sought to be recovered from her by Rs. 22495 and rectified the amount of bill as Rs. 41923/- instead of Rs. 64350/-. In the month of May, 2007 in the absence of the complainant meter installed at her premises was removed by the officials to her house. Since the opposite parties have refused to correct the bill and restore the electric supply to the house of the complainant inspite of being approached by her to them, hence this complaint 3. On being put to notice, the opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant, is not the 'consumer' of the opposite party, that the complainant, has no cause of action and locus standi, to file the complaint because she is not the consumer of electric energy under the opposite parties as electric connection in question has been installed in the name of Nirpal Kaur wife of Pawanjit Singh; that complainant has failed to deposit the amount of bill, as such, electric supply to his house has been stopped and the meter installed therein oihas been removed by PDCO No. 153/66198 dated 4.11.06. The electric connection could have been reinstalled within a period of one year but no initiative has been taken by the complainant for restoration thereof; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hand as she has suppressed the real facts from the knowledge of this Forum. as such, she is Contd.......3 : 3 : not entitled to grant of relief. On merits, it is admitted that electric connection bearing Account No. LR36/0784 is installed in the name of Smt. Nirpal Kaur and it is submitted that the amount of Rs. 41930/- is outstanding towards the complainant. It is contended that bill dated 5.2.2007 has been rightly issued by the opposite parties in the sum of Rs. 75114/- which she is laible to pay and it is reiterated that the electric supply to the house of the complainant has been disconnected vide PDCO No. 39/37132 dated 9.8.2006 and the same was again disconnected vide PDCO No. 153/66198 dated 4.11.2006. Thereafter, the electric meter installed in the house of the complainant was removed on 1.2.2007 and complainant has not taken any initiative for restoration of electric supply to her house within a period of one year. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Exhibit C-1, and copies of documents Ext.C-2 to C-5 before his counsel closed his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties has also tendered in evidence, copies of documents, Ext.OP-1 to OP-2 and closed the evidence, on their behalf. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh.H.S.Sadhuwala, Advocate, has submitted, at the out set, that as per record maintained, by the board, electric meter is installed in the name of Nirpal Kaur and complainant has not filed any application for transfer of the same in her name, as such, she is not a consumer, within the purview of its definition given in the Act and, has no locus standi, to file the complaint and for the same reason is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant, has Contd........4 : 4 : drawn our attention, to the copy of sale deed showing that the house, in which meter in question has been installed, had been purchased by the complainant. Learned counsel, has argued that, even if, the complainant could not move the opposite parties for transfer of the electric connection in her name, for one reason or the other, even then, she is beneficiary and consumer of electric energy under the opposite parties. Learned counsel, has argued that for the aforesaid reasons the complainant, has locus standi to file the complaint which is maintainable before the Consumer Forum. 8. We find substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, because as per definition of the word 'consumer' given in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, a person who avails of any services for consideration including beneficiary of those services is a consumer. Although, electric connection is admittedly in the name of Nirpal Kaur, but as per copy of the sale deed dated 24.5.1989 Ext.OP-3, produced on record by the opposite parties, she has purchased the house wherein electric connection in question has been installed. The opposite parties, have not denied the fact that complainant is in occupation of the house where the said electric connection, has been installed and it is also not their case that the complainant is not depositing the amount of electricity bills drawn upon her for consumption of electricity through the electric meter in question. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has locus standi to file the complaint being consumer of electricity and complaint filed by her in the Consumer Forum is maintainable. 9. Learned counsel for the complainant, has drawn our attention to revised PDCO Ext.OP-1 dated 4.11.2006 on which signatures are shown to have been affixed by the competent authority on 1.2.2007. Learned counsel, has also submitted that official concerned, who went to the house of the complainant, for disconnection of his electric connection, has given note on the above said document that he has refused to affix the signatures, Contd........5 : 5 : but the said fact, has not been corroborated by any positive evidence. Learned counsel, has argued that as per the case of the opposite parties, the electric meter, was earlier disconnected on 9.8.2005, but as per averments made in the written version, PDCO was earlier issued for disconnection of his electric meter on 9.8.2006, but they have not explained any reason as to why they have issued the revised PDCO. Learned counsel has also submitted that vide receipt Ext.C-4, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.120/- on 15.2.2006 for checking of her electric meter, but the opposite parties, have not taken any action, as such, their action of disconnection of electric supply through the electric meter installed in the house of the complainant, is arbitrary and is not sustainable. Learned counsel further urged that complainant, has been subjected to mental and physical harassment and she and members of her family, had suffered for want of electric energy to their premises, as such, she deserves to be compensated and the opposite parties are also liable to pay her costs incurred for filing the complaint with a further direction to the opposite parties not to disconnect the electric connection restored in terms of the interim order dated 8.9.2008. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties, has submitted that meter installed in the premises of the complainant, has been disconnected for want of deposit of amount of bill. Learned counsel has further submitted that amount earlier deposited by the complainant was adjusted in the previous bill and she has failed to get the electric connection restored within the stipulated period, as such, the option before her is to apply for fresh connection after deposit of amount outstanding towards her. 11. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, have failed to sound well with us, because no reason, has been given by them as to why the PDCO, has been issued twice for disconnection of same electric connection installed in the house in Contd........6 : 6 : possession of the complainant. The complainant has produced on record copy of receipt Ext. C-4 issued by the opposite parties showing that he deposited a sum of Rs.120/- for checking of the meter, because it was recording reading more than consumption of electric energy. The opposite parties, have not produced on record, any document showing action taken by them, in this regard, on the complaint filed by the complainant. Since the matter, has not been disposed of by the opposite parties, before disconnecting the electric connection installed in the house in possession of the complainant, therefore, we fail to appreciate the action taken by the opposite parties in ordering the disconnection of her electric connection , which is a necessary amenity for enjoyment of premises by the person in possession. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and set aside the PDCO dated 4.11.2006, Ext.OP-1 issued by the opposite parties, with a direction to them, to decide the complaint of the complainant, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and not to disconnect the electric supply to her house. In case the reading of the electric meter installed in the house in occupation of the complainant is found to be correct by the M.E. Lab, for which prior notice be issued to her affording her opportunity of being heard, specifying the proposed date for checking, then opposite parties shall be at liberty to effect the recovery of the amount due and on failure of the complainant, to do so and after exhausting of the remedies open to her, if any, they may disconnect the electric connection. 13. However, the complainant and members of her family have definitely suffered mental and physical harassment due to non disposal of the complaint made by her. Therefore, the opposite parties are burdened in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, as compensation and to pay him a sum of Rs.1,000/-, as costs, incurred by her, in filing of the instant complaint. Contd......7 : 7 : 14. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 25.02.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
