DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 314 of 05.11.2007<br /> Decided on : 30-01-2008 <br /> <br /> Bhura Singh aged about 55 years S/o Bhan Singh R/o Village Maluka, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Bhagta Bhai Ka, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Rajinder Parshad, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. R. D. Goyal, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Through this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'), complainant seeks direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw/cancel bill No. 30140 payable by 29.10.07; get deposited the amount of actual consumption; pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental and physical agony besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Succinctly put the version of the complainant is that domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. MF 27/0364-K E, has been installed at his residence in village Maluka. He has been regularly making payment of the electricity connection bills. Bill No. 30140 dated 12.10.07 for Rs. 7420/- was received by him. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 7020/- has been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances. He assails this amount of Rs. 7020/- as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and inoperative on the grounds that he did not consume so much electricity; average amount of the previous bills did not exceed Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/-; no amount was outstanding and no reason has been assigned as to on which account impugned amount Rs. 7020/- has been added. Officials of the opposite parties were approached many a times with the request to withdraw the amount of Rs. 7020/- but to no effect. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file it and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. On merits, they admit that complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection. They deny that he was making payment of electricity connection bills regularly. Inter-alia their plea is that connection of Sh. Jagsir Singh S/o Bhura Singh, complainant was checked by Sh. Ranjit Singh, Additional Senior Executive Engineer Enforcement, on 10.7.07. He was accompanied by Sh. Jasvir Singh, A.E.E. At the time of checking, it was found that he was using 12.5 B.H.P. motor. He had installed another motor of 7.5 B.H.P. Starters of both the motors were in one and the same room. Motor of 7.5 B.H.P. was joint with the same supply system of electricity from where 12.5 B.H.P. motor was running. Checking was made in the presence of Lakha Singh S/o Mauj Singh who had signed the checking report. He was representative of Jagsir Singh. On the basis of checking, memo No. 1338 dated 12.7.07 was issued. Motor of 7.5 B.H.P. was illegally running. No prior sanction for running it was obtained. Jagsir Singh could run motor of 15 B.H.P. He could not bifurcate the load of 15 B.H.P. by way of running two motors. Demand is legal and valid. When Jagsir Singh did not deposit the amount of Rs. 7020/- on the basis of memo No. 1338, amount has been transferred in the domestic connection of the complainant who is his father. Jagsir Singh has no other connection of any type. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), affidavit of Sh. Lakha Singh (Ex. C-2), photocopies of bills (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4) and photocopy of letter (Ex. C-5).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties photocopy of complaint titled Jagsir Singh Vs. P.S.E.B. (Ex. R-1), photocopy of affidavit of Sh. Paramjit Singh, S.DO (Ex. R-2), affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Singh (Ex. R-3) and photocopy of checking report (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 7. Copy of the impugned bill dated 12.10.07 is Ex. C-4. A perusal of it reveals that alleged sum of Rs. 7020/- has been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowance. Opposite parties claim this amount on the ground that checking of the electricity connection No. MK-140 of Jagsir Singh son of the complainant was conducted by Sh. Ranjit Singh Additional Senior Executive Engineer Enforcement on 10.7.07 in the presence of Jasvir Singh, A.E.E. and Lakha Singh. He was found using two electricity motors i.e. one of 12.5 B.H.P. and other of 7.5 B.H.P. in the same premises. Starters of both the motors were in one and the same room. Motor of 7.5 B.H.P. was in joint with the same supply system of electricity from where 12.5 B.H.P. motor was running. Checking report, copy of which is Ex. R-4 was prepared on the basis of the checking memo No. 1338 dated 12.7.07, copy of the which is Ex. R-5. It was issued to Jagsir Singh claiming the amount of Rs. 7020/- which has not been deposited by him. Since Jagsir Singh has no other account concerning electricity, amount of Rs. 7020/- has been added in the impugned bill of complainant Bhura Singh whose electricity connection is MF 27/0364-K E.<br /> 8. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Rajinder Parshad, learned counsel for the complainant are that complainant has no connection with electricity connection No MK-140 which is in the name of Jagsir Singh. It being so, opposite parties cannot claim amount of Rs. 7020/- allegedly due towards Jagsir Singh from the complainant by way of adding it in his bill without affording opportunity of being heard to him.<br /> 9. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that opposite parties are well within their right to claim the amount of Rs. 7020/- due against Jagsir Singh from the complainant as he (complainant) is his father and Jagsir Singh has no other electricity account except A/c No. MK-140.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 11. Material question for adjudication is as to whether the amount concerning electricity charges outstanding against one consumer can be recovered from another consumer and too without affording opportunity of being heard. No doubt Jagsir Singh is the son of the complainant. This itself is no ground that complainant can be fastened with the liability of Jagsir Singh particularly when evidence has not been led by the opposite parties that property of the complainant and Jagsir Singh is joint and they are joint in mess and living. Learned counsel for the opposite parties failed to show us any rule on this aspect of the matter according to which one consumer of electricity having separate electricity account can be shouldered with the liability of another consumer having separate electricity account. Similar matter had come for consideration before their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Another JT 1995 (2) (SC) 626. It was held by their Lordships that liability of a consumer cannot be thrust upon a third party. There is no rule to shift one's liability upon the shoulders of another. If anybody defaults in making payment of his/her dues, Board can take recourse to law for realisation of its dues. In this view of the matter, we are also fortified by the observations of 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).<br /> 12. Keeping all the above relevant facts, circumstances and the legal position in view, demand of Rs. 7020/- raised by the opposite parties through bill No. 30140 dated 12.10.07 by showing this amount in the column of sundry charges and allowances is certainly illegal and null and void. Moreover, this demand is against the principles of natural justice as well as it does not stand established that before adding the amount of Rs. 7020/- in this bill opportunity of being heard was afforded to the complainant. Hence, deficiency in rendering the services to the complainant is proved to the extent of Rs. 7020/- out of the amount of this bill.<br /> 13. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. As per discussion made above, complainant is not liable to pay Rs. 7020/- out of the amount of the bill, copy of which is Ex. C-4. A sum of Rs. 3500/- has already been deposited by the complainant out of Rs. 7020/- on the basis of order of this Forum on 14.11.07 as is clear from Ex. C-5. Accordingly, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw the demand of Rs. 7020/- added in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill, copy of which is Ex. C-4, adjust the amount of actual consumption and other permissible amount of this bill out of the amount of Rs. 3500/- and refund the balance amount alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 14.11.07 till payment. Complainant is also craving for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental and physical agony. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 500/-.<br /> 14. No other point was urgent before us at the time of argument.<br /> 15. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :<br /> i)withdraw the demand of Rs. 7020/- added in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill, copy of which is Ex. C-4.<br /> ii)Adjust the amount of actual consumption and other permissible amount of this bill out of the amount of Rs. 3500/- and refund the balance amount alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 14.11.07 till payment. <br /> iii)Pay Rs. 500/- as compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy failing which the amount of compensation would carry interest @9% P.A. till realisation.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 30-01-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> ( Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br />