Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/558

Chander Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corpn.Limited - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

CC No: 558 of 13.08.2014

                                                                     Date of Decision: 30.01.2015

 

Chander Mohan s/o Sh.Satpal resident of House no.253/2, Street no.12, Janta Colony, Rahon Road, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      … Complainant

                                      Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited., Sub Division Gaunsgarh, U-II, Ludhiana, through its Executive Engineer/SDO/XEN.

                                                                             … Opposite party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

 

Present:       Sh.Nitin Kapila, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.S.C.Mahant, Advocate for OP.

                   

                        ORDER

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PREISDENT)

 

1.                The present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Chander Mohan s/o Sh.Satpal resident of House no.253/2, Street no.12, Janta Colony, Rahon Road, Ludhiana (hereinafter to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited., Sub Division Gaunsgarh, U-II, Ludhiana, through its Executive Engineer/SDO/XEN (hereinafter to be referred as ‘OP’)- directing them to withdraw the impugned bill and to issue fresh bill with exact charges as per reading of the meter and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of acts of deficiency in service committed by OP due to mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant alongwith any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant is found entitled.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had purchased the property measuring 200 Sq. yards, constructed on plot no.50-51, comprised in Khasra no.248, Khata no.846/873 as per Jamabandi for the year 2005-2006 situated at Village Taraf Jodherwal, Abadi New Janta Colony Tehsil and District Ludhiana, vide sale deed dated 18.4.13. An electric connection bearing a/c no.E42GT420045Y is lying installed in the above said property in the name of Sudesh Rani. The complainant being purchaser of the property is consuming electricity through the said electric connection for running of his unit of Printing Press in order to earn his livelihood. The complainant has been making regular payment of electricity charges to the OP since the date of purchase of the property. In the month of February, 2014, the electric meter became non-functional and the same was removed by the officials of the OP and in place of that new meter was installed by the OP. The old meter was not removed by the OPs in the presence of the complainant nor any checking was made in his presence nor the complainant was ever called upon in ME Lab for carrying out inspection of the meter. In the month of March, 2014 the complainant was shocked when he received the electricity bill dated 14.3.14 whereby the OP raised a demand of Rs.1,35,250/- and vide the said demand, the OP made it clear to the complainant that if the said amount is not paid within the due date i.e. on or before 28.3.14, then the complainant will have to pay the said amount alongwith surcharge of Rs.3604/-, totaling Rs.1,38,854/-. After receiving the demand bill, the complainant immediately approached the OP to know about the imposition of such demand and to furnish the details of the said demand, but the OP did not give any reply to the request of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant several times approached the OP to know about the details of the alleged demand bill and to withdraw the impugned bill and to issue fresh bill with exact charges as per reading of the meter, but the OP always postponed the matter on the one of the other false pretext. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OP appeared through his counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant is not consumer of the OP, as the real consumer of the electric connection bearing account no.E-42/JB/02/0262M is in the name of Sudesh Rani. The complainant has no privity of contract with the OP. The complainant is doing commercial activities and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum is barred under the Consumer Protection Acts; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum. In fact, the electric meter installed in the consumer premises bearing account no.E42JB-02/0262M was reported ‘Dead’ and as such, the dead meter was replaced with an accurate meter vide MCO no.E-42M/14/184846/08477 dated 28.1.14 on the request of the consumer. During the month of 2/14 and 3/14 and 4/14 ‘F’ Code was registered by the Meter Reader and accordingly consumption bill on average basis  was issued to the consumer. The consumer for making the payment of the demanded amount approached office of the PSPCL for the correction of the bills on the basis of actual consumption. The consumption bills of the consumer for the month of 3/14 and 4/14 were revised in view of the actual consumption consumed by the consumer and the necessary credit for the excess amount depicted in the consumption bills issued in the month of 6/2014 on average basis were credited to the consumer account through Sundry Charges Register maintained in the office of Senior Executive Engineer, Sunder Nagar Division, Ludhiana. The accounts of the consumer have been finally squared to his satisfaction and there is no excess amount charged to the consumer account. The consumer failed to deposit the actual consumption charges consumed by him during 3/14 and 4/14 and approached this Forum with the present complaint. On merits, submitted that the OP is not aware of the fact that the complainant has purchased the plot no.50-51 as mentioned in the para, nor the complainant has ever approached the OP for the change of name of the electric connection lying installed in the said premises in the name of Sudesh Rani. Denying all other allegation of the complaint answering OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In order to prove his case, Ld counsel for complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP has placed on record affidavit of Er.Sanjeev Kumar Jolly, Senior Executive Engineer, Sunder Nagar Division, Ludhiana Ex.RA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and placed on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10.

5.                We have heard the Ld. counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record before us.

 6.               The perusal of the complaint reveals that complainant being purchaser of the property measuring 200 Sq. yards, constructed on plot no.50-51, comprised in Khasra no.248, Khata no.846/873 as per Jamabandi for the year 2005-2006 situated at Village Taraf Jodherwal, Abadi New Janta Colony Tehsil and District Ludhiana, vide sale deed dated 18.4.13 was consuming electricity through the electric connection no.E42GT420045Y for running his unit of Printing Press in order to earn his livelihood. Meaning thereby that complainant is using the supply for commercial purpose to run his business of Printing Press. As such, present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.  Vs ANIS AHMAD.

7.                It is specific plea of the OP that complainant is not consumer of the OP, as the aforesaid connection is in the name of Sudesh Rani and the complainant has no privity of contract with the OP. Since the meter was reported ‘Dead’ as per the report of the concerned official and the same was replaced with accurate meter on the request of the consumer and during the month of 2/14, 3/14 and 4/14 and F ‘code’ was registered by the Meter Reader and accordingly consumption bill on average basis was issued to the consumer. As such, the consumption bills of the consumer for the month of 3/14 and 4/14 were revised.         The perusal of the evidence of the OP reveals that Ops produced on record MCO Ex.R1, from which, it appears that OP has rightly charged the amount of consumption. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Ld. counsel for OP also relied upon the judgement passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi-2012(3) CPC 58, vide which, it was held that District Forum partly allowed complaint, but the State Commission set aside the order as connection being in the name of one Shadi Lal- Complainant was not a consumer- Revision Filed- After going into observation made in Hari Prasad’s case 2010 (2) CLT 558 (Hr.), the view taken by the State Commission is legally correct- Petitioner being not a consumer is not entitled to any relief under C.P.Act. Revision Dismissed.

8.                In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit and barred by limitation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                   (S.P.Garg)                                         (R.L.Ahuja)

                     Member                                             President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:30.01.2015 

Hardeep Singh