BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No.42 of 2008 Date of Institution:15.04.2008 Date of Service:22.05.2008 Date of Decision:28.08.2008 Karnail Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh son of Attar Singh, resident of W-2/227, Tehsil & Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala. 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, North Sub Division, Moga. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, North Sub Division, Moga. Opposite parties. Complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member Present: Sh.Kewal Krishan, Adv.counsel for the complainant. Sh.Satvir Singh, Adv.counsel for the OPs. (J.S.Chawla, President) Sh.Karnail Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala, through its Secretary and othersOpposite Parties (herein-after referred to as Board) directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.33309/- raised vide bill dated 15.2.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Karnail Singh complainant is a consumer of the OPs-Punjab State Electricity Board (herein-after referred to as Board) having domestic connection no.SN99/0050P with sanctioned load of 4.92 KW installed at his residential premises in the name of one Jagroop Singh. That the premises where the disputed connection has been installed was purchased by the complainant from Jagroop Singh son of Gurcharan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 21.03.2006. Since then the complainant has been using the said connection & paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That previously, the OPs-Board had sent him bill dated 16.6.2006 for Rs.31027/- which he paid in two installments on 9.3.2007 and 15.3.2007. That now the OPs-Board sent bill dated 15.2.2008 for Rs.33309/- adding the previous balance when nothing was due against him. That the said demand of the OPs-Board is illegal, wrong and against the rules of the PSEB. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of OPs-Board time and again to withdraw the illegal demand but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.20000/-as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs-Board and they appeared through Sh.Satvir Singh Advocate, who filed the reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act as the electric connection in question has been installed in the name of one Jagroop Singh son of Gucharan Singh with which the complainant has no concern. So the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs-Board and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs-Board. On merits, it was averred that actually the bill dated 12.6.2006 was sent to the consumer for 5210 units (new reading of 22400 units minus 17210 units) for Rs.24877/- which he deposited. Thereafter, in the month of August and October, 2007 the meter of the consumer did not show the consumption. The old and new reading was same i.e. 26707 units and the minimum charges were claimed from the consumer. The meter of the consumer became defective and the complainant was charged taking the average of 901 units under regulation 73.1.3 of the Sales Regulation on the basis of consumption for the month of April, June and August 2007. Again in the month of December 2007 the meter of the consumer did not record the consumption and the consumer was charged on the basis of consumption of 5210 units in the corresponding month of the previous year i.e. December 2006 for Rs.25705/-. Again in the month of February 2008, the meter of the consumer did not show the consumption and the consumer was charged on the basis of consumption in the corresponding month of the previous year i.e. February 2007 and charged for 1585 units for an amount of Rs.7604/-(Rs.25705/- Plus Rs.7604/-) totaling Rs.33309/- of two bills for the month of December 2007 and February 2008 to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover the same. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same be dismissed. 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, bill Ex.A2, receipts Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, bill Ex.A5, copies of bills cum receipts Ex.A6 to Ex.A8, copy of registry Ex.A9 and closed his evidence. 5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.S.S. Sandhu Sr.XEN, detail of amount Ex.R2, consumption data Ex.R3 and closed the evidence. 6. Sh.Kewal Krishan ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.33309/- raised vide bill dated 15.2.2008 by the OPs-Board is illegal, void and against the rules & regulations of PSEB. 7. On the other hand, at the very outset, Sh.Satvir Singh ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has mainly argued that the electric connection in question is installed in the name of one Jagroop Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, but the present complaint has been filed by Karnail Singh complainant who has no concern with said Jagroop Singh son of Gurcharan Singh the original consumer of the OPs-Board. Thus, the present complaint filed by Karnail Singh complainant is not maintainable. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has full force. Admittedly, the electric connection in question was installed in the name of one Jagroop Singh son of Gurcharan Singh who sold the same property/premises alongwith electric connection in question to the present complainant vide registered sale deed dated 21.03.2006. But even after a lapse of more than 2 years, Karnail Singh complainant has failed to get transferred the electric connection in question in his name for the reasons best known to him. Further, there is not an iota of evidence on the record if the complainant has filed any application before OPs-Board for transfer of the said connection in his name. In this regard, section 2 (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down that a , consumer means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purposes. Karnail Singh complainant has failed to prove that by using the connection in question, he becomes a consumer of the OPs-Board. 8. For arguments sake, if it is presumed that the complaint is maintainable even then the impugned demand is legal and valid and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. Admittedly, the complainant paid the consumption bill dated 12.6.2006 for 5210 units taking the new reading of 22400 units minus old reading of 17210 units amounting to Rs.24877/-. Thereafter, in the month of August and October, 2007, his meter became defective and at that time the reading was 26707 units. Thereafter, the complainant was charged on the basis of minimum charges taking the average of 901 units under regulation 73.1.3 of the Sales Regulation on the basis of consumption for the month of April, June and August 2007. Again in the month of December 2007 the meter of the complainant did not record the consumption and he was charged on the basis of consumption of 5210 units on the basis of corresponding month of the previous year i.e. December 2006 for Rs.25705/-. Again in the month of February 2008 the meter of the complainant did not show the consumption and he was charged on the basis of consumption in the corresponding month of the previous year i.e. February 2007 and charged for 1585 units for an amount of Rs.7604/-(Rs.25705/- Plus Rs.7604/-) totaling Rs.33309/- of two bills for the month of December 2007 and February 2008. 9. The consumption data Ex.R3 further shows that the consumption of the complainant for 12/2006 was 5210 units and similarly in 2/2007 it was 1585 units. Admittedly, in the month of December 2007 and February 2008 the meter did not show the consumption. Therefore, the average consumption of 5210 units and 1585 units in December 2007 and February 2008 respectively taken by the OPs-Board can not be said to be excessive or high as per regulation 73.1.2 of the Sales Regulation. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board and the OPs-Board has rightly overhauled his account by taking the average of 5210 and 1585 units for the month of December 2007 and February 2008 respectively. 11. To prove the aforesaid contention, the OPs-Board has produced affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.S.S. Sandhu Sr.XEN, detail of amount Ex.R2, consumption data Ex.R3. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and other documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A9. 12. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla) Member Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:28.08.2008.
