DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/10/372 of 20.5.2010 Decided on: 19.10.2010 Zorawar Singh son of Gursharan Singh son of late Giani Kirpal Singh, Village Kaul, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., H.O. The Mall Patiala, through its Managing Director. 2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Rural Sub Division Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Nabha, District Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.D.S.Tung, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.Pankaj Verma, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Zorawar Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That Chanan Singh son of Teja Singh, who was the previous owner of the house, situated at village Kaul, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala and Chanan Singh was holding a domestic electric connection bearing account No.P-52-CM-300111-P so issued in his name by the opposite parties. The grand father of the complainant purchased the said house from Chanan Singh alongwith the above said connection vide writing dated 10.6.2002 and after the death of Kirpal Singh, grand father, the complainant is in possession of the said house and using the said electricity connection. That the complainant has received a letter/memo bearing No.107 dated 7.5.2010 so issued by the opposite parties wherein it has been alleged that the house of the complainant was checked on 4.5.2010 vide checking report No.68/1601 and the complainant was making theft of electricity by by-passing the meter and an amount of Rs.12679/- has been demanded from the complainant alongwith compounding charges. That the alleged memo dated 7.5.2010 and the demand made therein is illegal, null and void, not binding on the complainant and the complainant is not liable to pay any such amount, nor the opposite parties have any right to recover any amount from the complainant. That the complainant never made any theft of the electricity as alleged in the memo. The premises of the complainant were never inspected by the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant or any of his family members. No person of the village was joined by the checking party at the time of alleged checking nor any name has been mentioned in the checking report in whose presence the alleged checking was made by the opposite parties. That the opposite parties are now threatening to recover the said amount from the complainant, forcibly and illegally and to disconnect the electricity supply to which the opposite parties have no right, title or authority. That the threatened action of the opposite parties is illegal, unjust, improper and invades the legal and vested right of the complainant. That the complainant approached and requested the opposite parties to withdraw the said letter memo dated 7.5.2010 and not to disconnect the said electricity connection and not to recover the said amount from the complainant but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. That due to the issuance of the said illegal notice and raising the illegal demand by the opposite parties the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and as such the complainant is entitled to damages from the opposite parties to the tune of Rs.50000/-.Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that Chanan Singh got installed domestic electric connection in his house and in his name and still the above said connection is standing in the name of Chanan Singh in the records of the opposite parties. That the opposite parties send the consumption bills in the name of Chanan Singh. That on 4.5.2010, A.E.E.Ravinder Chopra alongwith the other officials of the opposite parties checked the meter of the house of Chanan Singh vide checking report No.68/1601 where they found that there was a joint near the meter and there was theft of electricity by by-passing the meter and direct supply of electricity was taken through separate red wire and near about 4 meters red wire was taken into possession by the officials of the opposite parties. The opposite parties correctly sent a demand notice of Rs.12679/- alongwith the compounding charges to the consumer Chanan Singh. The memo dated 7.5.2010 and the demand notice is legal one and correctly sent on account of the theft made by the consumer Chanan Singh. Moreover the opposite parties have every right to recover the amount as per the rules and regulations framed by the opposite parties. The checking of the meter of the consumer Chanan Singh was checked in the presence of the consumer and the consumer was asked to make the signatures on the checking report but he flatly refused to sign the same. Moreover the opposite parties had never threatened to recover the said amount. The action of the opposite parties is legal and as per the rules. The consumer never approached the opposite parties nor any request was ever made. Rather the opposite parties are entitled to the damages for the false and frivolous litigation made against the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. On perusal of the record and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties we gather that the complainant who claims to be an occupant of a particular premises and where the electricity has been already made available by the opposite parties, the meter in question does not stand in his name. It appears that the same stands in the name of earlier occupant of the said premises Sh.Charan Singh. Since the meter of Electricity Board did not stand in the name of the complainant he could not held to be a consumer of the Electricity Board under the rules. On this point we are supported by the authority Keshav Babu Tare Vs. Executivbe Engineer M.S.E.B. and another 2004(2) CLT 235. 7. The perusal of the checking report dated 4.5.2010,Ex.R2 would show that name of consumer is Charan Singh.The memo,Ex.R3 dated 7.5.2010 was also issued in the name of Charan Singh. The perusal of the complaint would show that it has been filed by Zorawar Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh. In the complaint it is admitted that Charan Singh s/o Teja Singh was the previous owner of the house. It is also pleaded by the complainant that his grand father Kirpal Singh had purchased the said house from Chanan Singh alongwith electric connection bearing account No.PB52-CM-300111P.However, to prove this fact no sale deed has been placed on record which could prove that Charan Singh had sold the house alongwith connection in dispute to Kirpal Singh grand father of the complainant. The complainant has placed on record an affidavit,Ex.C4 of Charan Singh s/o Teja Singh on the record. This affidavit is also of no help to the complainant as the complainant has not placed on record the alleged sale deed executed by Charan Singh in favour of Kirpal Singh. That being so it is held that complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act. 8. In the result we hold that the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:19.10.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
