DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.200/26.11.2008 Decided on : 28.05.2009 Smt.Gurdeep Kaur W/o Sh.Sohan Singh, Ward No.7, Agarwal Colony, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Desh Bhandu, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President This complaint has been filed by Smt.Gurdeep Kaur wife of Sh.Sohan Singh, a resident of Mansa, against Punjab State Electricity Board, (in short called the 'board'), through its Sub Divisional Officer , Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), for setting aside impugned bill dated 16.11.2008 and for award of compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for physical and mental harassment on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: 2. That the complainant secured electric connection bearing Contd........2 : 2 : Account No.72/1731 from the opposite party for consumption of electricity for domestic purposes in her residential house. Since the date of installation of the said electric connection, she had been regularly making payment of amount of electricity bills, drawn upon her, and no amount is outstanding towards her on that score. As such, she is consumer of electric energy under the opposite party, who has issued the electricity bills in the name of Gurdeep Singh, although the electric connection is issued in the name of the complainant. He has served bill dated 16.11.2008 upon the complainant raising demand of Rs.26,570/- including a sum of Rs,21,731/- as surcharge for the amount outstanding for the current year and a sum of Rs.3090/- as surcharge for the amount due in the last year. It is submitted that bill has not been served upon the complainant in the previous year raising demand of Rs.3090/-, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Since the complainant, has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to service of impugned bill raising of demand of huge amount, hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant is not a consumer under the opposite parties within the ambit of its definition given in the Act; that the complainant, has no locus standi and cause of action to file the instant complaint; that this Forum has no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint, because demand has been made for excess load of electricity drawn by the complainant beyond sanctioned load; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum, as such, it is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has not deposited the amount for the current year and the previous year and demand has been raised as per rules on the subject and she is bound to deposit the requisite amount. It is further submitted that on 30.7.2007 the checking of the premises of the complainant was done by the team of the board and it was found that she Contd........3 : 3 : was drawing 10.686 KW electric energy against her sanctioned load of 3.670 KW. It is also contended that checking report was prepared and copy thereof was supplied to the representative of the complainant at the spot who affixed her signatures. It is submitted that electric bills were served upon the complainant every month, but she did not deposit a sum of Rs.3090/-, as such, surcharge has been demanded on the said amount. It is denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party or that impugned bill is liable to be set aside and he is liable to make payment of compensation and costs. Rest of the averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered her affidavit, Exhibit C-1 and copy of documents Exhibit C-2 to C-8 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence photocopy of checking report Ext.OP-1, Notice dated 2.11.2007 Ext.OP-2 and affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, J.E. Ext.OP-3, and closed evidence. 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. To begin with Sh.Desh Bhandu, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that copy of notice drawn upon the complainant, has been addressed to one Gurdeep Singh. The opposite party has not served any notice upon the complainant before raising of demand through the impugned notice and copy thereof tendered in evidence by the opposite party, does not bear the signatures of any officer/official of the board and no proof of service thereof upon the complainant has been brought on record by the opposite party. Learned counsel further argued that in the complaint, it has been alleged that at the time of checking, complainant was found drawing load of electric energy to the extent of Contd........4 : 4 : 10.686 KW electric energy against her sanctioned load of 3.670 KW, whereas in the checking report, it is mentioned that she had been drawing load to the extent of 12.326 KW, as such, factum of checking is not free from suspicion and complainant has not sought any relief in the instant complaint as per notice dated 2.11.2007 relied upon by the opposite party. As per report of the technical expert, tendered in evidence by the complainant, and bills tendered in evidence on her behalf, load drawn by her through the electric meter, installed in her premises, was much on the lower side than the sanctioned load, as such, no ground is made out to non suit the complainant on that score. Learned counsel further argued that this Forum cannot adjudicate beyond the scope of complaint, as such, impugned notice is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and complainant is entitled to seek compensation and costs from the opposite party, as demanded in the instant complaint. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party, Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate has submitted that there are typographical errors in the electricity bills and copy of notice regarding extent of load drawn by the complainant and her name, as such, case set up by the opposite party cannot be dismissed on that score. It is further submitted that complainant has affixed her signatures after admitting the contents of the checking report, factum of which is also proved by affidavit of the officer of the board comprising the checking team, as such, factum of checking cannot be said to be suspicious. Learned counsel argued that complainant has not produced on record proof of payment of outstanding amount for the current and previous year and has never complained about the non receipt of bills, as such, surcharge has been correctly levied in the impugned bill and she is liable to pay the same alongwith outstanding amount and her complaint being false and frivolous , is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel urged that there is no deficiency in service which may invite indulgence of this Forum, as sought through the instant complaint by the complainant. Contd........5 : 5 : 7. Admittedly, electric connection in question has been installed in the house of the complainant in her name. The name of the complainant in the bills Ext.C-2,C-4 to C-7 and copy of notice Ext.OP-2, has been mis-spelt as Gurdeep Singh instead of Gurdeep Kaur. However, name of the husband and her address do not suffer from any such error and in the copy of receipt issued by the board Ext.C-8, name has been correctly mentioned as Gurdeep Kaur alongwith her account number. As such, there is apparently clerical and typographical error in the electricity bills and copy of notice relied upon by the opposite party. Since there is no dispute regarding identity of the complainant, her account number and premises where electric meter in question is installed. Therefore, complainant cannot be said to have been suffered any prejudice on that score. 8. However, complainant is aggrieved by raising of demand in the sum of Rs.21,731/- for the current year and a sum of Rs.3090/- on account of surcharge for the amount outstanding towards her for the previous year in the impugned bill dated 16.11.2008. As per plea of the opposite party, she has failed to deposit the arrears of electricity charges for the current year and surcharge has been levied on the amount outstanding for the previous year as she failed to pay the amount. The plea taken by the complainant in the complaint is that she could not deposit the amount due for the previous year, as no bill was served upon her by the opposite party. However, she has brought on record receipt Ext.C-8 showing deposit of Rs.8500/- on 12.12.2008 i.e. during the pendency of the complaint. The conduct of the complainant in depositing the amount during the pendency of the complaint suggests that some amount was outstanding towards her during previous year and for the current year. It is the duty of the consumer to approach the office of the board in case bill for consumption of electricity for a particular period is not received by him/her. The complainant has neither taken such plea, nor she has brought on record any evidence, therefore, in our considered opinion there Contd........6 : 6 : is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, so far as, raising of demand of outstanding amount for the current and previous year and surcharge thereon, is concerned. As such, complaint filed by the complainant is liable to fail on that score and she is liable to pay the outstanding amount to the opposite party. 9. However, the plea of checking of excess load and documentary evidence tendered in evidence by the opposite party are beyond the scope of the reliefs sought in the instant complaint by the complainant. The complainant is master of his own case. The parties have neither any right to lead evidence nor to raise arguments beyond the scope of reliefs sought in the complaint. Since the complainant has not sought relief about the amount sought to be recovered from her through the impugned notice dated 2.11.2007 Ext.OP-2 and checking report Ext.OP-1, therefore, indulgence of this Forum is not warranted and the said controversy cannot be adjudicated in the instant complaint and is kept open for decision, as and when matter is brought before this Forum. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint and leave the parties to bear their own costs. 10. The copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 28.05.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
