DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.46/27.03.2008 Decided on : 06.02.2009 Sh.Mithu Ram S/o Sh.Chiranji Lal, resident of Jawaharke Road, Chungi Street, Mansa, at present Shivjiram Contractor street, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1. The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. 2.Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, City, Mansa. 3.Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Private Contractor, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sant Ram Advocate Street, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties . Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.R.K. Singla, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.K.C.Garg, Advocate counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 Smt.Rekha Sharma,Advocate counsel for Opposite Party No.3 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 Sh.Mithu Ram son of Sh.Chiranji Lal, resident of Shivjiram Contractor street, Mansa, against Punjab State Electricity Board, (in short called the 'board') through its Chairman, posted at Patiala, Sub Divisional Officer, Mansa and Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Private Contractor of the board, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), for giving them direction to rectify bill No.49 dated 20.3.2008 on the basis of actual reading and for Contd........2 : 2 : payment of compensation, in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, and costs incurred by him in filing of the instant complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant, has purchased his house situated near Vidya Bharti School, at Jawaharke Road, Mansa vide sale deed dated 6.2.2007. Since then he is in possession thereof as its owner. Electric connection bearing Account No. JR410167 is installed by the opposite parties, in the above said house. The complainant, had been making the payment of amount of electricity bills drawn upon him, as such, he is consumer, under the opposite parties, qua the said electric connection. After the mother of the complainant sustained injury, he shifted to his ancestral house, situated in Shivji Ram Contractor Street, Mansa and his house situated at Jawaharke Road, is lying vacant and locked since July, 2007. The opposite parties served a bill upon him for the period from 28.3.2007 to 23.5.2007 in the sum of Rs.210/-, another bill in the sum of Rs.530/- from 23.5.2007 to 20.7.2007 for electricity consumed through his electric meter installed in the house situated at Jawaharke Road. They also served bill, in the sum of Rs.540/-, for the period from 20.7.2007 to 22.11.2007. The complainant made the payment of all the above said bills. However, the opposite parties again served another bill for the period from 22.11.2007 to 24.1.2008, in the sum of Rs.920/-, although the complainant had not been using the electric energy, as his house is lying locked since July, 2007. After the complainant sent application dated 25.1.2008, the opposite parties reduced the amount of the said bill, to Rs.155/- and complainant deposited the said amount on 6.2.2008 and no amount was outstanding towards him upto 24.1.2008, but the opposite parties again served upon him another bill, in the sum of Rs.780/-, for the period from 22.11.2007 to 20.3.2008, which is illegal, as the complainant had already made the payment upto 24.1.2008. The complainant approached the opposite parties, but they refused to rectify the bill, because of which he, has suffered mental and physical agony. Hence Contd........3 : 3 : this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2, filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is not a consumer of the electric energy, as per the record maintained in the office of the board, as such, he has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that this Forum has no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint. On merits, it is submitted that electric connection bearing Account No. JR410167 has been issued in the name of Sh.K.S.Joshi and not in the name of the complainant. It is contended that the said electric connection was checked by the officials of the board and they came to know that electric meter installed in the house was defective and not recording reading, but electric energy is being consumer through the same because of which bills are sent on average consumption of electricity as per the rules of the board, on the subject. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. Opposite Party No.3 filed separate written version resisting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complainant is not the consumer of electricity, as such complaint is not maintainable and that complainant, has intentionally not disclosed the fact that electric bills are issued by the board on the basis of actual consumption of electricity and incidental charges are also levelled, but he kept silent, as such, he has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that answering opposite party is an agent of contractor i.e. M/s Arora Vohra & Company, G.T. Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, in terms of letter dated 26.4.2007 and has issued the bills correctly as per the reading recorded by the electric meter; that complaint is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties and being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint because he is not Contd........4 : 4 : consumer under the answering opposite party. It is admitted that bills, referred to in the complaint, have been issued and correction has been made in bill for the period from 22.11.2007 to 24.1.2008 from Rs.920/- to Rs.155/- vide bill dated 6.2.2008 and the complainant had deposited the amount of the said bill, but said fact does not dissolve him of his liability to make payment of the future bills. The amount was reduced by the opposite parties on the condition that the same would be adjusted in the next bill for the period 22.11.2007 to 20.3.2008, as such, impugned bill, has been correctly issued for the period till 20.3.2008. It is also submitted that there is no question of any mechanical error, as bills are prepared by the computer, on the basis of actual consumption and answering opposite party, has no enmity with the consumer. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 5. On being called upon, by the Forum, to do so, the complainant, tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ext.C-1 and C-15 and copies of documents Ext.C-2 to C-14. On the other hand, Sh.Ashok Singla, S.D.O., and Sh.Uttam Bansal, S.D.O. Of the board have tendered in evidence their affidavits Ext,OP-1 and OP-2 and Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Opposite Party No.3 has tendered his affidavit Ext.OP3/A and copy of authority letter Ext.OP3/B showing himself to be the agent of M/s Arora Vohra & Company, Ludhiana. 6. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through, the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. 7. As per the admitted facts, electric connection in question, has been installed, in the name of Sh. K.S.Joshi, in the house situated at Jawaharke Road, Mansa. The complainant, has produced on record, copy of sale deed dated 1.2.2007 Ext.C-2, showing that he has purchased the said house from Sh.Ram Karan son of Sh.Amarnath for consideration of Contd........5 : 5 : Rs.1,50,000/-. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has jointly argued that electric connection, has not been transferred in the name of the complainant in record of the board, as such, he is not consumer of electric energy, under the opposite parties consumed through the meter installed in the house and the present complaint is not maintainable under the Act and this Forum, has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon 2005(IV) CPJ 302 SDO(OP) HVPN versus Pradeep Kumar Khullar, wherein the complainant, has been running diagnostic centre and electric connection thereof continued in the name of the partner even after dissolution of partnership and complainant never moved for changed of the same in his name. It was held that he is not consumer under the opposite parties and has no locus standi to file the complaint and for that reason complaint is not maintainable. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the complainant, has stepped into the shoes of his vendor, after purchasing the house and he is making the use of the electricity and making payment of electricity bills drawn on him, as such, he is consumer of electricity, under the opposite parties and complaint filed by him is maintainable and this Forum has jurisdiction to try the complaint. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon 2006(2) CPC 137 Sat Pal versus P.S.E.B. through its Secretary and others, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab that it is settled that a person who is staying in a house as actual user of electricity is a consumer, being a beneficiary, as per provisions contained in Sub Section 2(1)(d)(i). In the present case, the connection was in the name of the father of the complainant. 10. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, because in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act, word 'consumer' includes beneficiary of services other than the person who avails them for consideration. The opposite parties have admitted that Contd........6 : 6 : complainant is making payment of electric energy consumed by him as per the bills drawn upon him by the opposite parties after accepting the amount of the bills from the complainant and have not produced any evidence that he is not owner of the house in which electric connection in question is installed. In view of the proposition of law laid down in the authority by our own Hon'ble State Commission, the complainant cannot be non-suitted on the basis of the verdict delivered in 2005(IV) CPJ 302 (Supra) by the Hon'ble Haryana State Commission. As such, there is no escape, but to hold that the complainant is 'consumer' of electricity, under the opposite parties, as per definition given in the Act and has locus standi to file the complaint. Therefore the complaint is maintainable and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the same. 11. Learned counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2, Sh.K.C.Garg, Advocate, has submitted that meter installed in the house is not recording any electric consumption because it is defective, as such, bills are issued on the basis of average consumption as per the rules on the subject and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 12. Learned counsel for the OP No.3, Smt. Rekha Sharma, Advocate, has submitted that OP No.3 is the agent of the contractor, who has been awarded contract for recording of reading of electric meters installed in the premises of the consumers in the area, as such, no liability can be fastened upon the agent, because he renders services for the principle. Learned counsel further submitted that error in the bill for the period 22.11.2007 to 24.1.2008 drawn in the sum of Rs.920/-, has been rectified on the condition that the remaining amount would be adjusted in the next bill and accordingly the amount due, has been included in the bill for the period from 22.11.2007 to 20.3.2008, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 for which he may be burdened with financial liability. 13. Learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Contd........7 : 7 : Singla, Advocate, has submitted that after rectification of the bill for the period from 22.11.2007 to 24.1.2008, on the basis of application dated 25.1.2008, filed by the complainant, there was no justification for addition of the remaining amount, in the impugned bill issued, in the sum of Rs.780/-, for the period from 22.11.2007 to 20.3.2008. Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant had deposited the amount due against bill for the period 22.11.2007 to 24.1.2008 after rectification of error upto 24.1.20-08, but the opposite parties have issued the bill again for the period from 22.11.2007 to 20.3.2008, as such, the same is required to be rectified and opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for inconvenience caused, mental and physical agony suffered by him and to pay him costs incurred for filing of complaint. Learned counsel has argued that even opposite party No.3, cannot be absolved of liability, because impugned bill, has been issued by him on behalf of the contractor engaged by the board with malafide intention to harass the complainant. 14. Before embarking upon the controversy between the complainant and Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, we consider it appropriate to hold that Opposite Party No.3, has been appointed as agent by the contractor engaged by the board for limited purpose of recording the reading of electric meters, in the premises of the consumers. The complainant, has not taken any plea that there is privity of contract between him and OP No.3 or his principle. The relationship between the contractor, who has engaged him for the above said purpose, and the board is distinct. As such, no liability can be fastened upon Opposite Party No.3, even if, there is any error, on his part, in recording of reading of electric meter, installed in the house of the complainant. 15. However, remaining opposite parties cannot escape liability merely, because the complainant, has deposited the amount of bills drawn on him, without protest. As per admitted facts, the opposite parties, have reduced the amount of the bill for the period 22.11.2007 to 24.1.2008 Contd........8 : 8 : Ext.C-13, to Rs.155/- from Rs.920/-, after he made the representation against excessive amount of bill. There is nothing on record to suggest that complainant agreed that remaining amount may be charged from him in the next bill. The impugned bill Ext.C-14 has been again issued for the period from 22.11.2007 to 20.3.2008. In the said bill old reading has been recorded as 8977, but new reading has only been recorded in three figures. As the complainant has paid the previous bill upto 24.1.2008, after rectification of error, therefore, impugned bill issued for the period from 22.11.2007 to 20.3.2008 is apparently not correct. Therefore, there is certainly 'deficiency in service' on the part of the opposite parties and impugned bill Ext.C-14 is liable to be rectified on the basis of actual consumption for the period 25.1.2008 to 20.3.2008. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 cannot escape the liability, even if, the complainant has taken contradictory plea that his house is lying locked since the date he shifted therefrom to the house in possession of his parents, due to sickness of his mother, but has paid the amount of bill drawn on him. 16. As per our opinion, the complainant, has suffered physical and mental agony, due to illegal demand raised by the opposite parties, in arbitrary manner, through bill Ext.C-14, for which he deserves to be suitably compensated. Since the complainant, has to incur amount for filing of the instant complaint, because the opposite parties, have failed to redress his grievance, as such, he is entitled to payment of costs. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, we partly accept the complaint against OPs No.1 and 2 and dismiss the same against OP No.3. Therefore, the impugned bill is set aside and direct the OPs No.1 & 2 to issue fresh bill, on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the electric meter installed in the house of the complainant. The OPs No.1 & 2 are also burdened in the sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony suffered by the complainant and also in the sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs incurred by him for filing the complaint. The compliance of the order Contd........9 : 9 : shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 18. 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: 06.02.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
