DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.109/06.08.2008 Decided on : 04.03.2009 Rajwinder Singh S/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh.Naranjan Singh, resident of Ward No. 3, Aggarwal Colony, Bhikhi, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Budhlada, District Mansa. 2.Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bhikhi, District Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. S.K. Singla, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. V.K.Singla, 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. This complaint has been filed by Sh. Rajwinder Singh son of Sh. Sukhdev Singh a resident of Ward No. 3, Bhikhi, 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 Executive Engineer, Budhlada and Sub Divisional Officer, Bhikhi for giving direction to order correction in the bill served upon him and for grant of compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment and costs of filing of the instant complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint, Mehar Singh S/o Sh. Jot Ram had got installed electric connection bearing Account No.B17BP380002W at his premises at Bhikhi for the purpose of running flour mill. The consumer named above expired after execution of will in favour of Sukhdev Singh father of the complainant, who had been using electric connection till his death and his estate, has been inherited by the complainant after his demise. At present, complainant is using the electric connection and is paying the amount of electricity bill drawn upon him by the opposite parties, as such, he is consumer under them. He is personally running the flour mill for earning livelihood and no amount is outstanding towards him. The opposite parties, have served bill dated 27.7.2008 upon the complainant raising illegal demand of Rs.5,362/- on account of miscellaneous charges which complainant is not liable to pay. On being approached for reduction of the amount of the bill, the opposite parties refused to oblige and gave threat in case he failed to deposit the amount, and electric connection installed in his premises would be disconnected, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant, has been subjected to physical and mental harassment and has incurred expenses for filing of the instant complaint. Hence this complaint 3. On being put to notice, the opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, has concealed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum and, has projected his version on false facts; that he is not a 'Consumer' of the electricity, under the opposite parties, as electric connection is still in the name of the original consumer Mehar Singh S/o Sh.Jot Ram and complainant has not got the same transferred in his name. On merits, it is admitted that electric connection, has been issued in the name of Mehar Singh S/o Sh.Jot Ram and reiterated that complainant is not consumer under the opposite parties, qua the said electric connection. It is contended that electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant developed defect and was declared as 'D' code, because of which electricity bills had been drawn upon him for the period September, 2006 to November, 2006 on average basis, as per rules on the subject, at the rate of 1256 units and the amount was paid by the complainant, but the audit team of the board raised objection that for three months prior to the development of defect in the meter installed in the premises of the complainant in the month of September, 2006, average consumption for three months by him was 1877, 1566 and 1193 units, respectively on the basis of which it works out to be 1545 units per month and the opposite parties, on the basis of the said report, issued bill in the sum of Rs.5,047/-, upon the complainant, which they are liable to recover from him. It is further submitted, that in addition to above said amount, an amount of Rs.315/-, is outstanding towards the complainant, on account of enhancement of tariff with effect from 1.4.2008, as such, total amount payable by him, has been demanded in the sum of Rs.5,362/-, vide bill dated 27.7.2008 correctly as per rules of the board on the subject and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the same with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant Exhibit C-1, and copy of impugned bill Ext. C-2 before he closed evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Darshan Singh Mann, S.D.O. Ext.OP-1 and Copy of audit report Ext.OP-2 before he closed their 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. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh.V.K.Singla, Advocate, has submitted that as per record maintained by the opposite parties, complainant is not consumer of electric energy consumed through the electric meter installed in the house in his possession and he has not filed any application for transfer thereof in his name, as such, he is not consumer of electric energy and, has no locus standi to file the complaint, which is liable to be dismissed, because it is not maintainable in the Consumer Forum. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant Sh. S.K.Singla, Advocate, has submitted that complainant, has inherited the estate of his father, upon whom his property is bequeathed by the person recorded as consumer in the record of the board. Learned counsel has further submitted that as the complainant is in possession of the house in which electric meter is installed, therefore, he being beneficiary and user of electric energy, is consumer and has locus standi, to file the complaint and the same is maintainable, in the Consumer Forum. 8. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, because his possession over the house in which electric connection is installed, is not disputed by the opposite parties. It is not their case that after the demise of Mehar Singh, Sukhdev Singh father of the complainant, has not being making the payment of amount of electricity bills consumed through the electric meter in question or it is being made by some other person. The averments made in the complaint, that complainant, has inherited the estate of his deceased father who had inherited the property of original consumer under his will, are not specifically controverted, in the written version filed by the opposite parties. As such, they have been deemed to have been accepted by them. Since the complainant is beneficiary of electric connection and is using the same and making payment of electricity bills drawn by the consumer, therefore, plea of the opposite parties cannot be accepted, that he is not consumer or that he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. In the light of our above discussion we are of the opinion that complaint is maintainable under the Act in the Consumer Forum. 9. Learned counsel for the complainant, has further submitted that amount of impugned bill, has been demanded by the opposite parties on the basis of report of their audit party, without securing report of Electrical Inspector , as such, impugned bill is liable to be set aside and complainant is entitled to claim compensation for physical and mental harassment and costs incurred by him for filing the instant complaint. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties, has submitted that only error, has been rectified by the opposite parties on the basis of the audit report given by the Auditors, because earlier demand has been raised of lesser amount from the complainant, although the reading of the meter prior to the date the defect in the same, was noticed with effect from September, 2006. Learned counsel, has further argued that, as per Regulation No.73.1.2 contained in Sales Manual of the board average of electric energy consumed through the electric meter is to be calculated for three months preceding the date of defect therein which was higher than the average of the previous bill had been issued. Learned counsel argued that competent authority, has issued the impugned bill after calculating the amount after report of the Auditors, who is inconsonance with the rules framed in the Sales Manual by the board, as such, the same cannot be said to be illegal merely because report of the Electrical Inspector has not been secured. 11. The short question for consideration before us is whether recovery of excess amount, can be made by the opposite parties from the complainant on the basis of report of their Auditors without securing the report of the Electrical Inspector, as provided in Section 26 of the Electricity Act. In this regard, reference may be made to 2008 (IV) CPJ NC 192 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited versus DAC Research and Health Specialties Pvt.Ltd wherein electricity bill was overhauled and extra amount was raised in the impugned bill on advice of Audit Party and contention of the opposite party was that previous bill was sent on average basis and consumption of electric meter of the complainant being on higher side, fresh demand has been made subsequently. It is held by the Hon'ble National Commission, that the said contention is not acceptable, because opposite party cannot take recourse on the basis of the report of the Audit Party, to burden the complainant by overhauling his account by imposing huge amount in the bill. In 2005(II) CLT Supreme Court 451 Bombay Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking versus Laffans (India) Pvt.Ltd. and anr., wherein revised bill was raised on average basis for the period during which meter installed in the premises of the complainant was burnt and was not found correct. It was held that for the period which the reading could not be recorded or retrieved because the meter was burnt. It is also held that there is nothing wrong in the licencee having raised the demand based on the average consumption for the similar period during the previous year. It is further held that for the period for which the meter is alleged to be not correct, the appellant cannot be allowed to raise additional demand over and above the demand raised through bills which were issued and paid by the opposite parties as the appellant has not made made a reference to the Electrical Inspector as required under Section 26 of the Electrical Act. 12. Being fortified by the ratio of judgments delivered in the authorities referred above and relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, we have no hesitation in holding that opposite parties were not right in raising the demand of additional bill through the impugned bill from the complainant on the basis of the report of the Audit Party without referring the dispute to Electrical Inspector, as envisaged in Section 26 of the Electrical Act. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and impugned bill served upon the complainant by them is not sustainable and they are liable to be set aside and they are to pay compensation for physical and mental harassment and costs incurred by him for filing the instant complaint. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and set aside the impugned bill dated 27.7.2008 drawn upon the complainant and direct the opposite parties to pay him a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of compensation for physical and mental harassment . The opposite parties are also burdened, in the sum of Rs.1,000/-, on account of costs, incurred by the complainant for filing of instant complaint. The compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The amount, if any, already deposited by the complainant in compliance of the interim order dated 6.8.2008 be adjusted in the future bills to be drawn upon the complainant. 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: 04.03.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
