DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 124 of 10-05-2007<br /> Decided on : 04-07-2007<br /> <br /> Lachhmi Narayan S/o Sh. Walaiti Ram, R/o G.T. Road, Near Teen Koni, Ganesha Basti, Bathinda. ... ...Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2. S.D.O./A.E.E.Punjab State Electricity Board, Cantt. Sub Division, Bathinda. ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Bikramjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Navneet Kumar, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Electricity Connection bearing A/c No. SB29/0824 has been installed in the premises of the complainant where he is running business under the name and style of Laxmi Auto Electric Works for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. This is the only source of income for livelihood. He has been regularly making payment of the electricity consumption bills issued from time to time. Average of his bi-monthly bills remained below Rs. 1,000/-. Premises in which the connection has been installed was purchased by him from Anil Kumar S/o Gurdas Singh through Sale Deed No. 8575 dated 10.2.03. Thereafter electricity connection was applied for by him which was released after requisite formalities were completed. Bill dated 21.4.07 was issued to him for the period from 27.1.07 to 26.3.07 for a sum of Rs. 10,080/-. This amount includes a sum of Rs. 9504/- which has been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances. Remaining amount pertains to the consumption of electricity. Amount was payable upto 4.5.07. Complainant assails the demand of Rs. 9504/- as illegal, null and voild, arbitrary, nonest and not binding upon him on the grounds that opposite parties have failed to give details of the alleged amount of Rs. 9504/- mentioned under column of sundry charges and allowances: they have straightway included this amount in the bill; no notice before raising demand has been given; no opportunity of hearing has been provided and no basis or criteria for the demand has been given. Opposite parties were approached time and again to disclose the details of the amount, but to no effect. They allege that amount has been demanded on account of theft of electricity. Meter installed in the premises is being checked by the officials bi-monthly at the time of taking reading but nothing incriminating was pointed out. He (complainant) has shown his readiness and willingness to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 576/- for the actual consumption. His request for quashing the demand of Rs. 9504/- proved futile. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties which caused him great mental tension, agony, botheration and humiliation. In these circumstances, instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred him seeking direction from this Forum to quash the demand of Rs. 9504/- and not to recover it; pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and Rs. 3300/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complainant is using the electricity for commercial purposes and on that account he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this forum; complaint is not maintainable in the present from; complainant has concealed the actual and material facts; he is not consumer; he is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct; amount in the sundry charges has been raised strictly according to rules; complainant has no cause of action and complaint has been filed to harass them. On merits, they admit that electricity connection in question has been installed at the premises of the complainant. They deny that business is being run by him for the purpose of self-employment. According to them, two more persons have been employed by him. He is running the business at large scale. They admit that he has purchased the premises from Anil Kumar S/o Gurdas Singh. Connection has been issued in the name of the complainant. Inter-alia their plea is that before the premises was purchased by the complainant, electricity connection bearing A/c No. No. SB29/0306 was running in the name of Gurdas Singh who was the father of previous owner. Amount of Rs. 9504/- was outstanding against him as per report of the SDO Sub Urban, PSEB, Bathinda which is chargeable from the complainant as he has got the electricity connection released in his name in the same premises. They admit that Rs. 9504/- has been included in the bill dated 21.4.07 as sundry charges. Defaulting amount can be recovered from the purchaser of the premises. They deny that demand of Rs. 9504/- raised through bill dated 21.4.07 is illegal, null and void, arbitrary, nonest and not binding upon the complainant on the grounds mentioned in the complaint. They refute the remaining averments in the complaint<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopies of electricity bills and receipts (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-13), photocopy of Sale Deed (Ex. C-14) and affidavit of Gurcharan Singh (Ex. C-15).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties reliance has been placed on the affidavit (Ex. R-1) of Er. Pritpal Singh, S.D.O. and photocopy of PDCO Ledger (Ex. R-2).<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.<br /> 6. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that complainant has purchased the premises in question from Anil Kumar S/o Gurdas Singh through Sale Deed No. 8575 dated 10.2.03, copy of which is Ex. C-14. Thereafter electricity connection was applied for by him and electricity connection bearing A/c No. SB29/0824 has been released. Bill dated 21.4.07, copy of which is Ex. C-12 has been issued showing an amount of Rs. 9504/- in the column of sundry charges and allowances without giving details thereof.<br /> 7. Maintainability of the complaint before this Forum has been assailed by the opposite parties on the ground that complainant is not consumer as the connection obtained by him is NRS. In other words, it has been taken by him for commercial purposes for running the business. He is doing the business at large scale by way of employing two persons. For this, reliance is placed by the opposite parties on the authority W.B.S.E.B Vs. Malati Saha III(2005) CPJ 519. Onus to prove this plea in the reply of the complaint is upon the opposite parties as the opposite parties have taken this objection. Consumer has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Relevant portion of this Section is 2(1)(d)(ii) which is reproduced as under :-<br /> (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed or with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.<br /> Explanation – For the purposes of this clause “Commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.” <br /> Explanation under Section 2(1)(d) makes the position crystal clear. According to it, commercial purposes does not included use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Opposite parties have not proved by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence that business run by the complainant in the premises in question is at large scale. They have not given the names and particulars of the persons who have been allegedly employed by the complainant. Ex. C-1 is the affidavit of the complainant in which he has deposed that he is running business for earning his livelihood by way of self employment and that this is the only source of income for his livelihood. No person has been employed by him and that entire work is done by him. Ex. C-1 gets corroboration from the affidavit Ex. C-15 of Gurcharan Singh. He has clearly stated that complainant is doing the entire work without employing any person for the purpose of earning his livelihood. His business is at very low scale. Case of the complainant is fully covered under the Explanation in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Hence, he is consumer as he has availed the services of the opposite parties by way of getting electricity connection for running his business exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.<br /> 8. With utmost regard and humility to the authority relied upon by the opposite parties, the same is distinguishable on facts. In that case, Hon'ble Commission was not considering the question of availing the services of Electricity Board by the complainant exclusively for the purpose of earning her livelihood by means of self employment.<br /> 9. Arguments pressed into service by the Learned counsel for the complainant are that demand of Rs. 9504/- raised by the opposite parties through impugned bill dated 21.4.07 is illegal, null and void and arbitrary as no notice prior for showing this amount in the bill was served upon the complainant. This amount has been straightway added in the bill. Moreover, amount outstanding concerning another consumer cannot be recovered from the person who subsequently gets connection in the same premises.<br /> 10. Mr. Navneet Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that opposite parties are well within their right to raise the demand as complainant has got the electricity connection in the same premises regarding which defaulting amount concerning the connection of Gurdas Singh is outstanding. This amount has rightly been added in the impugned bill.<br /> 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to these respective submissions<br /> 12. In our view demand of Rs. 9504/- is against the principle of natural justice. Opposite parties have straightway shown this amount in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill dated 21.4.07 without issuing separate bill giving complete details of the charges. There is no evidence that any notice giving the details of the amount before adding it in the bill has been served upon the complainant.<br /> 13. As per plea of the opposite parties and as is evident from the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Er. Pritpal Singh, S.D.O. and photocopy of the Permanent Disconnection Ledger, copy of which is Ex. R-2, electricity A/c No. SB29/0306 was in the name of Gurdas Singh who was in arrears to the tune of Rs. 9504/-. This amount was outstanding against Gurdas Singh. Opposite parties are claiming it from the complainant through impugned bill. Material question for adjudication is as to whether unrealised amount of one consumer can be recovered from another ? Answer to our minds is in the negative. Complainant has purchased the premises from Anil Kumar S/o Gurdas Singh and not from Gurdas Singh. He has not got the electricity connection of Gurdas Singh transferred in his name nor he is using the same. He has got independent electricity connection from the opposite parties which has been issued by them after he has completed the requisite formalities. He has not stepped into the shoe of Gurdas Singh. Under Law a Citizen cannot be saddled with the liability of another consumer. The liability of one consumer cannot be thrust upon a third party. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations 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. Another person's liability can be shifted to a third person. For this, reference can also be made to the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission of West Bengal (Kolkata) in the case of C.E.S.C. Limited Vs. Ruma Banerjee 2005 CTJ 78 (CP)(SCDRC).<br /> 14. In view of the discussion made, demand of Rs. 9504/- raised through impugned bill is illegal, arbitrary, null and void and not binding upon the complainant. When it is so, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant is writ large.<br /> 15. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our foregoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw the demand of Rs. 9504/- raised through bill dated 21.4.07, copy of which is Ex. C-12 and that if any amount out of this amount has been got deposited during the pendency of this complaint, the same be refunded alongwith interest @9% P.A. from the date of deposit till payment. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. In the facts and circumstances, case is made out for some compensation which we assess as Rs. 1000/- as complainant must have undergone mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment due to the illegal demand of Rs. 9504/- raised by the opposite parties.<br /> 16. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 17. 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. 9504/- raised by showing it in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill dated 21.4.07, copy of which is Ex. C-12.<br /> ii) Refund the amount, if any, got deposited from the complainant out of the amount of Rs. 9504/- during the pendency of the complaint alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of deposit till payment.<br /> iii) Pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant 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 under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act 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 to record room<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 04-07-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member