DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 199 of 13-05-2011

Decided on : 24-08-2011

Vijay Kumar aged about 55 years S/o Sh. Ram Nath R/o H. No. 6966, Guru Nanak Pura, Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman/Secretary.

2. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Civil Line, Sub Division, Bathinda.

   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Sh. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal, counsel for opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is holder of NRS electric connection bearing A/c No. B12EK490948F. He has been paying the electricity consumption bills so issued by the opposite parties from time to time and nothing is due towards him. He received a bill dated 30-04-2011 for Rs. 31,270/- in which Rs. 29,167/- has been shown in sundry charges without any explanation. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to get deposited the current bill, but they refused to do so, rather threatened that if the payment is not made, the connection would be disconnected. The complainant assails the impugned demand on the ground that he never committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly; condition of the meter was never shown to the complainant at the time of installation of meter; no opportunity in advance was provided to the complainant and the status of the meter in all the bills is shown as OK. The complainant alleged that he approached the opposite parties many times to withdraw the said sundry charges, but to no effect. Hence, he has filed the present complaint.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and admitted that complainant is holder of NRS electric connection bearing No. B12EK490948F. It has been pleaded that complainant was also holder of NRS electric connection bearing No. B13ST 68/500 which was installed at #6294, Street Sabun Wali, having load of 1.53 KW under City Sub Division, PSPCL, Bathinda. The complainant has concealed the material fact that he did not pay the electricity bill with respect to said electric connection No. B13ST 68/500 since 9-4-2010 and the amount of Rs. 29,167/- is due from him, hence the electric connection was permanently disconnected vide PDCO dated 14-10-2010. The complainant issued two cheques to the opposite parties with respect to payment of electricity bill against connection No. B12ST 68/500 but both the cheques were returned back by the banker of the complainant with remarks funds insufficient. It has been denied that nothing was due against the complainant. The amount of Rs. 29,167/- is due from the complainant with respect to electric connection No. B13ST 68/500 which has been demanded from him vide the bill in question.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. These are undisputed facts between the parties that the complainant is holder of NRS electric connection No. B12EK490948 and nothing is due against him against the said connection. The opposite parties issued bill dated 30-04-2011 to the complainant for Rs. 31,270/- whereby a demand of Rs. 29,167/- has been raised under the column of sundry charges.

6. The Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that complainant was also holder of another NRS connection bearing A/c No. B13ST 68/500 which was installed at #6294, Street Sabun Wali Having load of 1.53 KW under City Sub Division, PSPCL, Bathinda. He did not pay the electricity bills with respect to said connection since 09-04-2010 and the amount of Rs. 29,167/- is due from him against that connection but nothing was due from him against electric connection No. B12EK490948F. The complainant has issued two cheques for payment of electricity bills but both the cheques were dishonoured by his banker due to insufficient funds. The complainant is very well aware of the fact that the amount of Rs. 29,167/- is due from him with respect of electric connection No. B13ST 68/500 which is incorporated in the bill dated 30-04-2011 for electric connection No. B12EK490948F.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant urged that electric connection regarding which the demand has been raised from him, the premises where the said connection has been installed, stands sold by him in the year, 2007 and in support of his submission, he referred documents Ex. C-5 and Ex. C-8.

8. A perusal of detail of pending bills submitted by the opposite parties before this Forum vide Ex. R-3 reveals that electricity bills for the period from 09-04-2010 to 05-02-2011 were pending against electric connection No. 57-68/500 and in the regard PDCO No. 44/79381 was issued on 29-09-2010 which was effected on 14-10-2010. A perusal of document Ex. C-8 reveals that the premises i.e. #6294, Street Sabun wali, where the electric connection No. 57-68/500 has been installed sold by the complainant to one Ram Rattan on 19 -03-2007. The said Ram Ratan also signed a note vide Ex. C-5 to the effect that he has purchased the said premises and would be liable for all expenses on account of electricity and sewerage etc., The cheques which have been dishonoured by the banker have also been issued by said Ram Ratan is evident from Ex. R-7 & Ex. R-9. Hence, it proves on record that the impugned demand which has been raised from the complainant does not relate to him as the record reveals that the amount of the pending bills relates to the period after the sale of said premises by the complainant, hence he is not liable to pay the same.

9. If anybody defaults in making payment of his/her dues, Board can take recourse to law for realisation of its dues. In other words, one consumer cannot be saddled with the liability of another consumer. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & another JT 1995(2) SC 626. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission of West Bengal in the case of C.E.S.E. Limited Vs. Ruma Banerjee 2005 CTJ 78 (CP)(SCDRC). There is no rule to shift one's liability upon the shoulders of another. In view of this, real position is that opposite parties committed default in adding amount of Rs. 29,167/- of A/c No. B13ST 68/500 in the A/c of the complainant bearing No. B12EK490948F. This act of the opposite parties is not justifiable and complainant is not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 29,167/-. However, the complainant is liable to pay the actual consumption charges demanded vide bill Ex. C-7 dated 30-04-2011.

10. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 2,000/- as cost and the impugned amount i.e. Rs. 29,167/- added in the bill dated 30-04-2011 under the column of sundry charges is hereby quashed. The complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 31,270/- vide receipt dated 16-05-2011 Ex. C-4 with the opposite parties. As discussed above, the complainant is liable to pay the actual consumption charges as shown in bill dated 30-04-2011. Hence, the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 31,270/- deposited by the complainant, after deducting actual consumption charges. The complainant is also entitled to the refund of Rs. 10,000/-, if any, deposited by him seeking stay, as per order dated 16-05-2011 of this Forum, However, the opposite parties are at liberty to recover the amount of Rs. 29,167/- from the owner of the premises to whom the complainant has sold it.

11. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced :

24-08-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

( Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member