Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1280

Jatinder Singh Bhatti - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSEB - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Mahajan

30 Apr 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1280 of 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 24.08.2011

                                                          Date of Decision :  30.04.2015

 

S. Jatinder Singh Bhatti Son of Sh. Harbhajan Singh Bhatti Resident of 33, Kabir Park Amritsar

                                                                                                                                                                   …..Appellant/Complainant

         

                                      Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Additional Se   West Division, Amritsar.

 

2.       SDO Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Khandwala     Chheharta, Amritsar.

 

 

                                                          …..Respondents /Opposite parties

         

First Appeal against order dated 27.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar

Quorum:-

 

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                       :         Sh.S.K.Mahajan , Advocate

          For the respondents                  :         None 

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 27.07.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Amritsar, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant.

2.      The complainant Jatinder Singh Bhatti has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments, that he being the tenant of Sh.S.S.Gill  Kabir Park, Amritsar, has been enjoying amenity of the electricity installed in the above-referred tenanted premises. The complainant used to pay the electricity bill in respect of the consumption of the electricity charges. The complainant received an electricity bill dated 10.08.2010 from OPs demanding an amount of Rs. 32640/- as electricity charges against consumption of 6950 units during the period from 29.01.2010 to 10.08.2010. The said bill issued by the OPs is illegal, wrong, null and void. The average bill of the complainant used to be Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/-. The complainant never consumed the electricity, as alleged by the OPs. The OPs mentioned the period of consumption as 29.01.2010 to 10.08.2010 showing previous reading as 5674 in the alleged bill, which were taken by the OPs from bill dated 29.01.2010. The OPs issued a bill for the period from 29.01.2010 to 10.08.2008 for an amount of Rs.4670/- and complainant made payment of Rs.4670/- in respect thereof. The complainant has filed the complaint directing the OPs to withdraw the bill in dispute and to pay the sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant, besides compensation of                     Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not legally maintainable. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The material facts have been suppressed from the Consumer Forum by the complainant in this case. On merits, the complaint was resisted by the OPs on the ground that electricity connection bearing no. A33KW461550W has been running in the name of the earlier owner and not in the name of the complainant. The OPs issued bills dated 10.08.2008 to the consumer demanding the sum of Rs.32640/- for the period from 29.01.2010 to 10.08.2010. The OPs issued bill in dispute claiming the amount of Rs. 32540/- for actual consumption charges of the electricity consumed by the complainant for the period from 29.01.2010 to 10.08.2010. The electricity meter was defective and OP issued bill to the consumer in this connection on average basis claiming amount of Rs. 11928/- which was later on refundable. It had transpired that actual amount of Rs.32640/- as consumption charges outstanding against the connection in question, which were recoverable from this electricity connection and OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of electricity bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5, copy of certificate issued by Punjab and Sind Bank Ex.C-6, copies of electricity bills Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-8, copies of receipt regarding deposit of payment Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-10, copies of receipts Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-14.   As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Harpal Singh AEE PSPCL/OPs Ex.R-1. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Amritsar,  dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 27.07.2011. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Amritsar,  the instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, as none  appeared for respondents in this appeal at the time of arguments. We have also examined the record of the case. On the point as to whether complainant would be consumer of the OP in this case or not, the counsel for the complainant submitted that as per the Clause 2(15) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, consumer includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose and receiving electricity with works of a license. The consumer under Consumer Protection Act includes not only the person who hires the "service" but the  beneficiary also who availed of such services with the express approval of the person actually hiring the services. The complainant is tenant in the premises in question and he would definitely be the Consumer in the tenanted premises by taking electricity in our opinion.

6.      We find support from law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in Sat Kumar Vs. Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd and others reported in 2203(2) CLT Page 231 and the other law laid down by this Commission in M/s New Pal Textiles  Vs… Punjab State Electricity Board and others reported in 1998(1) CLT Page 490-491, wherein it has been held that complainant is tenant in the premises being beneficiary and is covered under the definition of the "Consumer".

7.      Now, we touch the merits of the case with the able assistance of counsel for the appellant on the record and evidence available on the record. The plea of the complainant is that complainant used to pay the electricity charges in respect of said electricity connection from time to time on average basis from Rs.4000 to Rs.5000/- and no previous due has been pending against him. On 10.08.2010, electricity bill was received raising demand of Rs.32640/- as electricity charges against consumption of 6950 units during period 29.01.2010 to 10.08.2010. This bill has been challenged by the complainant as illegal, null and void and arbitrary. The submission of counsel for the complainant now appellant is that earlier the average bill of the complainant used to be Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- and complainant never consumed the alleged electricity, as alleged by the OPs. The OPs mentioned period of consumption as 29.01.2010 to 10.08.2010 showing previous reading as 5674 in the alleged bill, which has been taken by the OPs from bill dated 29.01.2010. The case of the complainant now appellant is of the electricity bills from 29.01.2010 to 10.08.2010. The complainant raised demand of Rs.4670/-, which was shown in the previous reading in the bill. The affidavit of the complainant is on the record to this effect, vide Ex.C-1. The version of the OPs is that the bill raising the demand of Rs.32640/- was issued against consumption of 6950 units for the period from 29.01.2010 to 10.08.2010 for actual consumption for the period from 29.01.2010 to 10.08.2010; the OPs stated it to be actual consumption of the complainant.  The OPs further pleaded that since the meter in question was defective and OPs issued bill to consumer on the average basis claiming the amount of Rs. 11928/-, which were later on refundable, as it transpired that actual amount of Rs.32640/- was outstanding against electricity connection in question. Bill Ex.C-2 is in dispute raising demand for actual consumption of Rs.32640/- by the OPs for the period from 29.01.2010 to 10.08.2010. The old consumption is shown as 5674 and new consumption is shown as 12624 in it. Ex.C-3 is bill for Rs.4610/- for the period from 27.09.2009 to 29.01.2010, Ex.C-4 is bill for Rs.4323/- for the period from 27.09.2009 to 27.11.2009, Ex.C-5 is bill for Rs.14768/- from the period from 06.08.2009 to 27.09.2009. The stand of the OPs is that since meter was defective, hence the bill was sent to complainant on an average basis earlier. The version of the OPs in this case is that when the meter was put in order, therefore, it started giving actual consumption and actual consumption was found by virtue of disputed bill Ex.C-2 on the record. We have examined the bills Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9 on the record. The bill of Rs.4453 for the period from 06.04.2009 to 05.06.2009, the bill of Rs.6120/- for the period from 05.06.2009 to 06.08.2009, the bill of Rs. Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-13 are receipt for the deposits.

8.      From perusal of the above referred evidence on the record and affidavit of the complainant as well as affidavit of Sh.Harpal Singh, AEE of OPs, we find that due to disorder of the meter, bills were earlier sent on average basis to the complainant by the OPs. The complainant alleged that actual consumption as per average basis, which was earlier received by him in this case from bill dated 10.08,.2010 in dispute is for Rs.32640/- by due date. In this bill, credit of Rs.11928/-has been charged on average basis during the relevant period, the old reading as well as the new reading has been shown and consumption is recorded in the reading which comes to 6950 units of both old reading as well as new reading. The District Forum rightly observed in the order that complainant never challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing the requisite fee separately and moving application in this regard. No formality with regard to change of the accuracy of the meter has been fulfilled by the complainant nor got it challenged by the complainant. The District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that disputed demand is on account of actual consumption by complainant for the period from 29.01.2010 to 10.08.2010, which cannot be held to be illegal, null and void. We find that the order of the District Forum Amritsar is legal and sustainable, calling for no inference in this appeal. We affirm the order of the District Forum in this appeal.

11.    As a result of our above discussion, appeal of the appellant is found without any merit and same is hereby dismissed.

12.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 29.04.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                                                               (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                        MEMBER

                       

                                                           (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                          MEMBER

 

April 30     2015.                                                            

(ravi)