BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 63

Date of Institution : 8.3.2010

Date of Decision : 18.10.2010

Bal Krishan aged about 60 years s/o Dalip Chand s/o Babu Mal r/o Main Bazar, Jaitu Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, OP Sub Division, PSEB, Jaitu District Faridkot.

3. Sub Division Officer, Jaitu Opposite Bus Stand, Jaitu Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Amit Mittal counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for directing them to withdraw the illegal notice/bill dated 9.1.2006 and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5,500/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is consumer of the opposite parties and using his electricity Account No. BB260089. On 9.1.2006 complainant received a notice from the opposite party that the seals of his meter was found tampered on checking and also asking for the payment of penalty for Rs. 10,052/- to the opposite party. The complainant lodged his protest before higher authority of opposite party on the ground that no official ever checked the premises of the complainant neither seals of the meter of the complainant were ever found tampered. No official of the opposite party ever gave any observations about any theft by the complainant. Moreover, the notice is in the name of Siri Chand with remarks that Siri Chand refused to sign the notice at the time of checking but Siri Chand has already sold the premises to the complainant vide sale deed dated 29.12.1971 and the complainant residing in the premises since then. The complainant requested the opposite party that his meter may be checked again in the lab and withdraw the notice but the opposite party demanded one third of the amount for this purpose and complainant deposited the same. After that complainant many times visited the office of the opposite party but the opposite party always gave false assurance that his meter was sent to Lab and they will solve the matter early and in the month of November, 2006 official of the opposite party replaced the meter from the premises of the complainant and they asked that they will sent it in the lab. On 25.12.2009 the complainant again received the inflated bill of Rs. 13,460/- and on enquiry it was told by the official of the opposite party that the notice amount also has been added in this bill. The complainant has made many requests to the opposite party to withdraw the notice but the opposite party refused to admit his claim, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,500/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 10.3.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. There is no privity of contract with the present complaint nor does he fulfill the requirements of consumer as given in the Act. The present complaint is time barred. On merits, it is admitted that the present notice has been sent in the name of Siri Chand and the amount has been called on the basis of checking by Amarjeet Singh SDO, Jaitu and his team on 29.12.2005 and during checking it was found that the meter had been tampered with which was visible to the naked eye. The checking was done in the presence of the complainant but he refused to sign the checking report. The copy of the same was given to the complainant. Thereafter, the present notice was served upon the complainant but he did not deposit the amount. The amount has been charged as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of the application dated 3.9.2007 Ex.C-2, application dated 13.4.2007 Ex.C-3, copy of sale deed Ex.C-4, copy of bill Ex.C-5, copy of receipt dated 6.1.2010 Ex.C-6, notice dated 9.1.2006 Ex.C-7, notice dated 29.12.2005 Ex.C-8, application dated 21.2.2006 Ex.C-9, copy of bill dated 25.12.2009 Ex.C-10, bill dated 24.2.2006 Ex.C-11, bill dated 23.12.2005 Ex.C-12, bill dated 27.4.10 Ex.C-13, bills Ex.C-14 and Ex.C-15 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Amarjit Singh Ex.R-1 and evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order of this Forum vide order dated 10.9.2010.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant in the present case is that no official of the opposite parties ever checked the electric meter of the complainant nor any theft was detected in the manner stated in the so called checking report Ex.C-8. On asking of the employees of the opposite parties pursuant to the request made by the complainant to check his electric meter complainant deposited the requisite amount vide Ex.C-9. On such deposit case was proposed to be sent to the Disputes Settlement Committee constituted by the opposite parties but fate of the representation of the complainant in this respect is still unknown. Disputes Settlement Committee fixed only date vide letter/notice Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. Still further, checking in this case is claimed to have been done in the presence of the complainant but checking report in this respect is silent.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that from the head note and the prayer clause it is evident that the complainant has challenged notice/bill dated 9.1.2006. Demand notice dated 9.1.2006 Ex.C-7 in this respect had been brought on record by the complainant himself. The instant complaint has been filed on 8.3.2010. Therefore, evidently the present complaint barred by limitation. Further, it is alleged that complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties as the connection in question stands in the name of one Siri Chand. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties, therefore present complaint is not maintainable. Still further, checking was made in the presence of the complainant but he refused to sign the same as is evident from remarks in this regard given at appropriate place in the checking report itself Ex.C-8. Therefore, otherwise also complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant however submitted that an occupant of the premises where the electric meter stands installed can bring the complaint being beneficiary and aggrieved person. In regard to limitation it is submitted that the complainant has recurring cause of action and on issuance of bill dated 23.2.2010 Ex.C-14 the cause of action has been revived so the complaint is not barred by time. In support of such contention heavy reliance has been placed upon a ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Versus M/s Veljan Hydrair Ltd. 2007(2) RCR (Civil)-587.

11. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record and have found that the complainant has brought on file a copy of the sale deed Ex.C-4 whereby Siri Chand and others sold out their house to the complainant. Though the bills are being issued still in the name of Siri Chand but from the address of Siri Chand and the representation of the complainant in view of which there has been a move for sending his representation to Disputes Settlement Committee and the fact that bills Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-15 regarding the connection in question have come from the possession of the complainant, it cannot be said that he is not the consumer of the opposite parties being user and beneficiary of the connection in question. However, vide the present complaint bill dated 9.1.2006 alone have been challenged. This fact is further confirmed from the prayer clause where also a prayer has been made for withdrawing the illegal notice/bill of the said date. Notice dated 9.1.2006 Ex.C-7 further vouchsafes this fact. Therefore, evidently the complaint filed by the complainant is beyond the period of two years in view of the provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. Ruling cited by the learned counsel for the complainant is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the present case. Still further, it is admitted that Disputes Settlement Committee has not decided the matter nor the complainant has withdrawn his representation whereby he has challenged the bill in question. Therefore, otherwise also Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

12. In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by the complainant has been found to be devoid of merits and as such the same is dismissed. However, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 18.10.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)