DISTRICT CONSUMERDISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No.302 of 29.10.2007 Decided on : 5.2.2008 <br /> <br /> Gurmeet Singh S/o Balbir Singh S/o S. Bachan Singh, Shop No. 7/B, Gali No. 6, Nai Basti, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2. A.E.E./S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, City Sub Division, Bathinda.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection 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. S.P.S Khokhar, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. J.R Khattar, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to quash the demand of Rs.19,233/-; refund the amount, if any, got deposited under compelled circumstances alongwith interest @ 18% P.A from the date of payment till realisation; pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages on account of mental tension and agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass as under :- Balbir Singh father of the complainant had taken shop No. 7/B, situated in Gali No. 6, Nai Basti, Bathinda on rent from Brokers Association, Bathinda about 10/12 years ago. In the family settlement, this shop had fallen to the share of the complainant. Now complainant is running the shop under the name and style of M/s. Ramgarhia Fabricators for the purpose of earning his livelihood and the livelihood of his family. Electricity connection bearing A/c No. NG-59/0621-H was got installed in the shop by the Brokers Association in the name of Pardhan, Satta Chamber. He being the tenant in the shop is enjoying facility of electricity connection and has been making payment of the electricity consumption bills issued from time to time. Bill dated 19.10.2007 for Rs.19,840/- was received by him for consumption of 119 units only. This amount includes Rs. 19,233/- which have been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances without disclosing the details thereof. On receipt of the bill, opposite party No. 2 was approached to inquire about the demand of Rs. 19,233/-. Officials of opposite party No. 2 extended threat to him saying that the amount be deposited failing which the connection would be disconnected. Nature of the demand was not disclosed. Complainant assails the demand of Rs. 19,233/- as illegal, null and void on the ground that no checking whatsoever was conducted by the officials of the opposite parties at any point of time in his presence or in the presence of his representative nor copy of the checking report was supplied; he was not indulging in theft of electricity; no show cause notice was served upon him before raising the demand; no opportunity of being heard was afforded; no demand was ever raised vide separate order and the impugned demand has been raised straightway through the bill dated 19.10.2007; meter was not checked in his presence nor his signatures were obtained and the average of bio-monthly bills never exceeded from Rs.800/- to Rs. 1,000/-. He alleges deficiency in service 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 no locus-standi and cause of action to file it; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain it; complainant is estopped from filing it by his act and conduct; complainant is not consumer and complaint is false and frivolous. They admit that there are two adjacent shops owned by Satta Chamber, Bathinda. Two separate connections are there. One is NG-59/620 and the other NG59/621. Shop under the tenancy of the complainant has connection No. NG-59/621. Other shop where connection No. NG-59/620 was installed is under occupation of Smt. Saroj Bala W/o Pawan Kumar, R/o Minocha Colony, Bathinda. On 13.3.2007, checking of the premises occupied by Smt. Saroj Bala was conducted by Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement, Punjab State Electricity Board. She was using 6.08 Kws load against the sanctioned load of 0.66 KW. Accordingly, demand of Rs. 14,700/- was raised from Smt. Saroj Bala. She did not deposit the amount. Ultimately, her electricity connection was disconnected. After disconnection, it was found that complainant was providing electricity to the shop in occupation of Smt. Saroj Bala from his connection No. NG-59/621. On the recommendations of Sh. Surinder Singla, A.J.E, defaulted amount of Rs. 19,225/- of connection No. NG-59/620 was clubbed in the bill of the complainant as per rules, regulations and sales manual instructions. Complainant was supplying electricity to her without authority and against law. On 18.9.2007, Mr. Surinder Singla, A.J.E had made the facts clear to the S.D.O, City Bathinda who had endorsed the necessity for disconnection of the supply. Notice was issued to the complainant on 19.9.2007, but complainant did not bother. Thereafter, bill dated 19.10.2007 for Rs. 19,840/- including sundry charges of Rs. 19,233/- was issued. Complainant is liable to pay this amount. They deny that demand of Rs. 19,233/- is illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurmeet Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopy of receipt dated 6.10.2007 (Ex.C.2) and photocopies of bills (Ex.C.3 to Ex.C.6).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2) of S/Sh. Surinder Singla, A.J.E and Raj Kumar Singla, SDO respectively, photocopy of the checking report dated 13.3.2007 (Ex.R.3), photocopy of suit filed by Saroj Bala (Ex.R.4), photocopy of written statement filed by them in the aforesaid civil suit (Ex.R.5), photocopy of memo No. 2055 dated 19.9.2007 (Ex.R.6), photocopy of one page of sundry charges and allowances register (Ex.R.7) and photocopy of letter dated 18.9.2007 (Ex.R.8).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the complainant.<br /> 7. Mr. Khattar, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that electricity connection bearing A/c No. NG-59/620 in the shop in occupation of Smt. Saroj Bala was checked on 13.3.2007 by the Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement and copy of the checking report is Ex.R.3. She was found using excess load i.e. 6.08 Kws against the sanctioned load of 0.66 KW. Demand of Rs. 14,700/- was raised from her. This amount was not deposited by her. Accordingly, her electricity connection was disconnected. Civil Suit was filed by her and copy of the plaint is Ex.R.4. Opposite parties have submitted written statement in that Civil Suit, copy of which is Ex.R.5. She could not get her electricity connection restored. Thereafter, she got managed electricity supply from the electricity connection No. NG-59/621 installed in shop No. 7/B which has been occupied by the complainant. In this manner, complainant was supplying electric energy without any permission. On 18.9.2007, Sh. Surinder Singla, AJE had found the complainant supplying electricity to Smt. Saroj Bala and matter was reported by him to Sh. Raj Kumar Singla, SDO as is evident from Ex.R.8. On 19.9.2007, memo No. 2055 was issued t o the complainant for depositing Rs.19,225/- within seven days. Complainant did not deposit this amount. Accordingly, bill for Rs.19,840/- was issued including Rs.19,233/- in the column of sundry charges and allowances and complainant is bound to pay this amount. <br /> 8. Mr. Khokhar, learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant was not committing theft of energy. Opposite parties have no authority to add the due amount against Smt. Saroj Bala in the bill of the complainant and that too, straightway without affording an opportunity of hearing to him.<br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments. Complainant reiterates his version in his affidavit Ex.C.1. Ex.C.6 is the copy of the impugned bill. A perusal of copies of the bills which are Ex.C.3 to Ex.C.5, dated 17.4.2007, 17.6.2007 and 20.8.2007 reveals that these bills payable by due date were for Rs.546/-, Rs. 1,160/- and Rs. 850/- respectively. It is not the case of the opposite parties that any other amount of the electricity consumption bills is outstanding towards the complainant. As per Ex.R.3, electricity connection in the shop in occupation of Smt. Saroj Bala bearing A/c No. NG-59/0620 was checked by the Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement and she was found using excess load i.e. load of 6.08 Kws against the sanctioned load of 0.66 KW. Complainant has no connection with the shop in possession of Smt. Saroj Bala where there was electricity connection No. NG-59/0620. Demand of Rs. 14,700/- was raised from her and she did not deposit this amount. As is evident from the reply of the complaint, an amount of Rs. 19,225/- was outstanding against Smt. Saroj Bala concerning her shop which has not been paid by her. Her connection has already been permanently disconnected. It is further the story of the opposite parties that on the recommendations of Mr. Surinder Singla, A.J.E, defaulting amount against Smt. Saroj Bala has been added in the bill as complainant was found supplying electricity to the neighbouring shop of Smt. Saroj Bala. Opposite parties further allege that demand of Rs. 19,225/- was raised from the complainant vide memo dated 19.9.2007. Stance of the opposite parties that complainant was supplying electricity to the shop of Smt. Saroj Bala does not stand supported. It is not known in whose presence Mr. Surinder Singla found the complainant supplying electricity to the neighboring shop of Smt. Saroj Bala. No checking report in this respect has been prepared. Opposite parties have not averred even a single word about the alleged checking or checking report. Mode ad manner in which electricity supply was provided by the complainant to the shop in possession of Smt. Saroj Bala have not been disclosed. It does not stand substantiated from the evidence on the record that memo No. 2055 dated 19.9.2007 was actually served upon the complainant. Receipt of this memo by the complainant has not been proved by the opposite parties. Before charging the amount under the head of sundry charges in the impugned bill, opposite parties were required to deliver separate memo regarding the demand and the details thereof. Since, no separate bill/memo for Rs. 19,233/- has been shown to have been served upon the complainant, this demand is illegal in view of Sales Regulation No. 124.1.<br /> 10. Opposite parties allege that a sum of Rs. 19,225/- was the defaulting amount concerning Smt. Saroj Bala and has been clubbed in the bill of the complainant. Basis of charging this amount of Smt. Saroj Bala as per opposite parties is only that complainant was found supplying electricity to Smt. Saroj Bala. Opposite parties have failed to prove it by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. Defaulting amount of one consumer cannot be charged from another consumer in view of the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & another-JT-1995(2)SC-626. If anybody defaults in making the payment of his/her dues, Board can take recourse to law for realization of its dues. For that, it cannot approach another person to make payment for the defaulter. A consumer cannot be saddled with the liability of another. In this view of the matter, we also get support from the observations of Hon'ble State Commission of West Bengal, Kolkata in the case of C.E.S.C. Ltd. Vs. Ruma Banerjee-2005 CTJ-78 (CP) (SCDRC).<br /> 11. From an overall assessment of the facts, circumstances and the evidence discussed above, conclusion is that the demand of Rs. 19,233/- raised by the opposite parties by way of showing it in the bill dated 19.10.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.6, in the column of sundry charges and allowances is illegal, null and void. It is liable to be set-aside. Since, this demand has been illegally raised and amount is being demanded from the complainant, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 12. 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. 19,233/- out of the amount of bill dated 19.10.2007 shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances. Learned counsel for the complainant has brought to our notice that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- out of the impugned amount of Rs.19,233/- has already been deposited by the complainant on 8.11.2007 on the basis of the order dated 2.11.2007 of this Forum. Accordingly, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to refund this amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of deposit till payment. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental tension and agony. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused him mental tension, agony and harassment for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> 13. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 14. In the premises written above, complaint is accepted against the opposite parties with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Withdraw demand of Rs. 19,233/- shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the amount of the bill dated 19.10.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.6.<br /> ( ii ) Refund an amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of deposit i.e. 8.11.2007 till payment.<br /> ( iii ) Pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iv ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 15. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 5.2.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br /> <br />