Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/379

Samunder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Joginder Singh

02 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        379

Date of Institution :  28.12.2016

Date of Decision :    2.06.2017

Samunder Singh aged about 73 years s/o Sh Narain Singh, r/o Guru Nanak Colony, Street No. 3, House No. 3, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., City Sub Division, Faridkot through its Assistant Executive Engineer, Faridkot. Tehsil and District Faridkot.
2.  Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman /Managing Director.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Vikas Tondon, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh M S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.s

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to set aside the demand of Rs.37,840/-raised vide bill dt 6.12.2016 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs. 12,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant has taken the premises of Mohinder Goyal son of Kastoor Chand on rent and has been using the supply of electricity from the connection which is installed in the name of said Mohinder Goyal. It is  submitted that as settled between complainant and said Mohinder Goyal, complainant has been using his electric connection and paying all the bills regularly as per consumption and thus, complainant is the consumer of Ops. It is further submitted that earlier, Ops issued wrong bill from 9.08.2016 to 4.10.2016 for Rs.7,81,240/-, which was got corrected by complainant and as per directions of Ops, complainant paid Rs.900/-as current charges. But now, complainant has received bill for Rs.37,840/-for the period from 27.09.2016 to 6.12.2016 for 61 units, but the amount charged by Ops is very excessive and is against the rules. On receiving the said bill, complainant immediately approached Ops and requested them to correct the bill in question, but they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and then finally, refused to do so and threatened him to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to correct the bill as per consumption and prayed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.12,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 3.01.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                           On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complainant is not the consumer of Ops as connection in question is installed in the name of Mohinder Pal Goyal son of Kastoor Chand and no information regarding using the said house was ever given to Ops. Moreover, no lease deed was produced by complainant and  complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that as per record of PSPCL, Mohinder Pal Goyal is the consumer of Ops and not the complainant and payment regarding consumption is still being paid to them by its original consumer. It is averred that no document regarding settlement between complainant and Mohinder Pal Goyal is produced in the office of answering Ops and without the previous consent of Ops in written, consumer can not assign, transfer or part with the benefit of his agreement with PSPCL to any other person. However, it is admitted that bill for the period from 9.08.2016 to 4.10.2016 for Rs.7,81,240/- was issued, but complainant paid Rs.900/-for current bill and amount of Rs.7,81,240/-was deleted due to wrong billing of sap system. It is further admitted that wrong bill for Rs.37,840/-was issued due to wrong bill of sap system. The account of complainant was overhauled and fresh correct bill for the period from 22.11.2014 to 27.09.2016 was issued from old reading 3210 and new reading 4396 and bill was issued for 674 days. The previous payment made by complainant was adjusted and remaining  amount to be paid upto 27.09.2016 was Rs.37,490/-with surcharge Rs.98/-total amount Rs.37,588/-. It is averred that correct bill was prepared and necessary adjustments were also carried out. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                     Parties were given proper opportunities        to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 8 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-5 and closed the evidence.

7                           We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

    The ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant has taken the premises of Mohinder Goyal son of Kastoor Chand on rent and has been using the supply of electricity from the connection which is installed in the name of said Mohinder Goyal. It is  submitted that as settled between complainant and said Mohinder Goyal, complainant has been using his electric connection and paying all the bills regularly as per consumption and thus, complainant is the consumer of Ops. It is further submitted that earlier, Ops issued wrong bill from 9.08.2016 to 4.10.2016 for Rs.7,81,240/-, which was got corrected by complainant and as per directions of Ops, complainant paid Rs.900/-as current charges. But now, complainant has received bill for Rs.37,840/-for the period from 27.09.2016 to 6.12.2016 for 61 units, but the amount charged by Ops is very excessive and is against the rules. On receiving the said bill, complainant immediately approached Ops and requested them to correct the bill in question, but they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and then finally, refused to do so and threatened him to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to hi. He has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

8                              To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of  consumer and he is not the consumer of Ops as connection in question is installed in the name of Mohinder Pal Goyal son of Kastoor Chand and no information regarding using the said house was ever given to Ops. Moreover, no lease deed was produced by complainant and  complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that as per record of PSPCL, Mohinder Pal Goyal is the consumer of Ops and not the complainant and payment regarding consumption is still being paid to them by its original consumer. It is averred that no document regarding settlement between complainant and Mohinder Pal Goyal is produced in the office of answering Ops and without the previous consent of Ops in written, consumer can not assign, transfer or part with the benefit of his agreement with PSPCL to any other person. However, it is admitted that bill for the period from 9.08.2016 to 4.10.2016 for Rs.7,81,240/- was issued, but complainant paid Rs.900/-for current bill and amount of Rs.7,81,240/-was deleted due to wrong billing of sap system. It is further admitted that wrong bill for Rs.37,840/-was issued due to wrong bill of sap system. The account of complainant was overhauled and fresh correct bill for the period from 22.11.2014 to 27.09.2016 was issued from old reading 3210 and new reading 4396 and bill was issued for 674 days. The previous payment made by complainant was adjusted and remaining  amount to be paid upto 27.09.2016 was Rs.37,490/-with surcharge Rs.98/-total amount Rs.37,588/-. It is averred that correct bill was prepared and necessary adjustments were also carried out. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

 9                                                    The case of the complainant is that he is residing on a rented premises and being tenant he is using the electric connection of his house owner and has been paying all the bills as and when received and nothing is due towards him for consumption charges. As per complainant, earlier he received bill for the period from 9.08.2016 to 4.10.2016 for Rs.7,81,240/-, which was got corrected by him and as per directions of Ops, complainant paid Rs.900/-as current charges. But now again, complainant has received bill for Rs.37,840/-for the period from 27.09.2016 to 6.12.2016 for 61 units, but the amount charged by Ops is very excessive and is against the rules. Requests made by complainant to correct the bill are refused by Ops, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to him. In reply, Ops stressed mainly on the point that complainant is not their consumer. However, they have also justified the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that requisite correction has been made. It is averred that bill for the period from 9.08.2016 to 4.10.2016 for Rs.7,81,240/- was issued, but complainant paid Rs.900/-for current bill and amount of Rs.7,81,240/-was deleted due to wrong billing of sap system. It is further admitted that wrong bill for Rs.37,840/-was issued due to wrong billing of sap system, which is again corrected. The account of complainant was overhauled and fresh correct bill for the period from 22.11.2014 to 27.09.2016 was issued from old reading 3210 and new reading 4396 and bill was issued for 674 days. The previous payment made by complainant was adjusted and remaining  amount to be paid upto 27.09.2016 was Rs.37,490/-with surcharge Rs.98/-total amount Rs.37,588/-. It is averred that correct bill was prepared and necessary adjustments were also carried out.

10                        Ld Counsel for Ops further argued that connection in question is installed in the name of Mohinder Pal Goyal son of Kastoor Chand and no information regarding using the said house was ever given to Ops. Moreover, no lease deed was produced by complainant and  thus, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OPs asserted that as per record of PSPCL, Mohinder Pal Goyal is the consumer of Ops and not the complainant and payment regarding consumption is still being paid by its original consumer. It is averred that no document regarding settlement between complainant and Mohinder Pal Goyal is produced in the office of answering Ops and without the previous consent of Ops in written, consumer can not assign, transfer or part with the benefit of his agreement with PSPCL to any other person. To prove his case, ld counsel for Ops have placed on reliance on citation dated 2012(2)CLT558 on Revision Petition No.3066 of 2009 titled as Hari Parsad Vs MU H B V N L Panchkula and Ors, wherein our Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d)Consumer–Beneficiary–Electricity bill in dispute quashed by Distt Forum–Order of Distt. Forum was set aside in appeal–State Commission held that the complainant had no relation with OP because connection was in the name of other person–Contention that the complainant was beneficiary of connection, held not acceptable – Beneficiary must avail services with approval of the consumer – No authority of the consumer produced in support of claim – Held that, the complainant is not the consumer of services provided by OP and initiated proceedings a a proxy complainant – therefore, held not entitled to any relief – Order of State Commission upheld – Revision petition dismissed.

11                                        In the light of above discussion and arguments advanced by parties and case law produced by the OPs, we are fully convinced with OPs and observed that complainant is not the consumer of OPs and complainant has failed in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 2.06.2017

                                        Member                           President                                                   (P Singla)                           (Ajit Aggarwal)