BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, MOGA.

                                                                       Complaint No. 14 of 2015

                                                                        Instituted On:10.02.2015

                                                                           Decided On: 11.02.2015

Jinder Pal Singh aged about 38 years son of Amar Singh resident of Village Jalalabad East District Moga.

………..Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Secretary, The Mall Patiala.

2.       Senior Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Division,  Moga.

3.       S.D.O, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Bhinder Kalan District Moga.     

………….Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

        Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                                                          ****

C.C.No. 14  of 2015                //2//
Coram:       Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

         Smt. Vinod Bala, Member

          Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Present:      Complainant in person

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Secretary, The Mall Patiala and others (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties)-Ops directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.56,440/-, to pay               40,000/- as  compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and also to grant any other relief to which this Forum may deem proper.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that an electric connection bearing account No.LB-550869N has been installed in the shop of the complainant with sanctioned load 0.46. The said electric connection was in the name of Harshpal Singh. The complainant has purchased the said property in question through registered sale deed. The consumption charges of the said electricity connection in dispute was never exceed Rs.400/- per month. It has been pleaded that an electric meter of the complainant was removed by the opposite parties and thereafter they raised the above demand from the complainant. It has been further pleaded that neither the removed meter was packed in a card box nor any consent was given to

C.C.No. 14  of 2015                //3//
check the meter in the absence of the complainant at time of removing the meter in dispute. No notice has been issued by the opposite parties to the complainant or any of his representatives regarding the checking of the electric meter in dispute. Further it has been pleaded that the opposite parties straightway through bill dated 03.1.2015 have demanded a sum of Rs.56,440/- from the complainant with regard to connection No. LB-550869N, which is wrong and illegal. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested  to withdraw the above said notice. But the opposite parties did not pay any heed to request of the complainant. Hence this complaint.

3.       Heard on question of admission. The electric connection bearing account No. LB-550869N has been installed in the name of Harshpal Singh.  The impugned bill in dispute has also been issued in the name of Harshpal Singh. Harshpal Singh is the consumer under Punjab State Power Corporation Limited i.e. the opposite parties. Only person, who could impugn the bill in dispute is Harshpal Singh. Complainant Jinder Pal Singh although claims himself to be the special power of attorney of Harshpal Singh, yet he cannot be considered to be a consumer, competent to file the complaint directly in his own name. The case of the complainant that he has purchased the property where the electricity connection, is installed vide registered sale deed, is also not borne out from the document adduced on record. Instead of producing the alleged sale deed, photostat copy of an agreement to sell dated 22.08.2000 has been adduced on record. When

C.C.No. 14  of 2015                //4//
quizzed further, the complainant stated that no registered sale deed has been executed on the basis of the agreement to sell in dispute. In such a situation title of the property, where the electric connection in dispute is alleged to have been installed, does not vest in the complainant. In such a situation, the complaint in dispute should have been filed by Harshpal Singh through Jinder Pal Singh as his special attorney. However, instant complaint has been filed by Jinder Pal Singh directly in his own name, which is not maintainable by any means. Since the complainant is not proved to be a consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, instant complaint cannot proceed any further and the same is ordered to be dismissed in limine. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

(Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Vinod Bala)                   (S.S.Panesar)

     Member                             Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:11.02.2015.