BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 431 of 2014 Date of Institution: 11.11.2014
Date of Decision: 13.07.2015
Jagsir Singh aged 49 years son of Naranjan Singh resident of Village Markhai Tehsil. Zira Distt. Ferozepur
....... Complainant
Versus
S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Zira
District Ferozepur.
........ Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Surjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. Rohit Arora , Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
C.C.No. 431 of 2014 //2//
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that an electric connection bearing account No.M 64 MK 670099Y has been installed in the premises of the complainant in the name of his deceased father Naranjan Singh, which is being used by the complainant as domestic connection and he has been making the payment of electricity charges to the opposite party regularly. Therefore, the complainant, being beneficiary user of the said connection, is a consumer of the opposite party. It has been pleaded that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste category and his deceased father Naranjan Singh has taken the above noted connection in that category quota as the Punjab Govt. is giving a concession of 200 units per month to the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste Category. Further it has been pleaded that the complainant received a bill dated 4.10.2014 for Rs.13,720/- without giving concession of 200 units for which the complainant is entitled. The complainant approached the opposite party immediately and requested it to correct the bill in question as per his actual consumption as the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste category, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The meter status of the connection in question always remained O.K., but despite that, the
C.C.No. 431 of 2014 //3//
complainant has been receiving the electricity bills for huge amounts from the opposite party by making wrong calculations of his consumption readings and all the times, the complainant approached and requested the opposite party to rectify the same , which is quite excessive, but nothing has been done by the opposite parties. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to withdraw all the electric bills, which has been issued including 200 units, to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs. 5,500/- costs of litigation to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. As per record of the opposite party, the connection in question still stands in the name of Naranjan Singh, father of the complainant. No application for change of name qua the connection in question has ever been moved to the opposite party. As such, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the present form. Further it has been pleaded that the benefit of Weaker Section Rebate as claimed by complainant is concerned, as per rules and regulations of PSPCL, such benefit is released to consumers, whose name the electric connections is running. So in the present case, since
C.C.No. 431 of 2014 //4//
connection in connection still stands in the name of Narajan Singh father of the complainant, so the complainant is not entitled to relief of Weaker Section Rebate in respect of connection in question. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence Ex.O.P-1 to Ex.O.P-2 and closed evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
5. So far as objection of the opposite party that the electric connection in question stands in the name of Naranjan Singh and as such the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties, is concerned, the complainant has specifically mentioned in the onset of his complaint that the electric connection in question has been installed in his premises in the name of his father Naranjan Singh; he has been using the electricity through the said connection and has been paying the electricity charges in respect of the said connection to the opposite party. On the other hand, the opposite party has not denied this fact simply or
C.C.No. 431 of 2014 //5//
evasively. Therefore, the complainant, being the beneficial user of the said connection, falls under the definition of consumer, as provided under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986., which is reproduced as under for ready reference:-
“(d) “consumer” means any person who-
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) (hires or avails of ) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avail of ) the services for consideration paid or promised or partly
paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such
C.C.No. 431 of 2014 //6//
services for any commercial purpose. ”
6. The complainant received a bill dated 04.10.2014 for an amount of Rs. 13,720/- from the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party immediately and requested it to correct the bill in question as per his actual consumption as the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste category and his deceased father Naranjan Singh has taken the above noted connection in that category quota as the Punjab Govt. is giving a concession of 200 units per month to the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste Category, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.. To prove his case, the complainant has produced copy of death certificate of his father Naranjan Singh, who died on 20.02.1990 as Ex.C-4. To prove that Naranjan singh father of the complainant has taken the above noted connection in that category quota in which the Punjab Govt. is giving a concession of 200 units per month to the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste Category, the complainant has placed on file bill Ex.C-2. The complainant is the beneficiary of the above said connection, so he is entitled to the benefit of the same category. The opposite party has failed to adopt the procedure for raising demand of arrears of consumption of electricity. The opposite party has straightway included the amount of arrears in the current bill of
C.C.No. 431 of 2014 //7//
the complainant, which is wrong and against the rules and regulations of the PSPCL itself. No opportunity of being heard has been provided to the complainant by the opposite parties before raising the impugned demand. Therefore, the demand of the opposite party is not justified and accordingly is liable to be set aside.
7. In view of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.500/- as litigation expenses and the demand of the opposite parties raised vide bill dated 04.10.2014 Ex.-5 as arrears/previous balance is quashed. However, the opposite party is at liberty to raise such demand after deducting 200 units per month as the concession given by the Punjab Government to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
13.07.2015
(Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Inderjeet Kaur)
Member
