DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 102 of 01-04-2008<br /> Decided on :22-05-2008 <br /> <br /> Karnail Singh S/o Gurcharan Singh R/o Village Nathana, Tehsil and District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> Sub Divisional officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Nathana.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite party <br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. K.S. Bhullar, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. S.S. Dhillon, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No.B91NA/230383 W. It is in the name of his father Gurcharan Singh who has since died. Complainant is using the electricity and paying the amount of bills issued from time to time. His Bi-monthly average of the bills ranges from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/-. Meter was defective. Thereafter opposite party started sending the bills applying commercial tariff (N.R.S.). Bill for 20.11.07 was for Rs. 2160/-. After great pursuation, opposite party reduced it to Rs. 930/- and amount was deposited. Bill dated 21.1.08 was sent for sale of power to the tune of Rs. 1341/-. Thereafter bill dated 21.3.08 showing the amount of sale of power as Rs. 2893/- besides other charges at NRS/commercial rate was sent. He alleges that bills are illegal. His allegation is that opposite party has indulged in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on his part. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by him seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to produce the record; pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation/damages for mental agony and frustration; correct the bills on actual consumption by reducing them to Rs. 250/- bi-monthly under domestic tariff; pay interest @18% P.A. till payment and cost of the complaint. Besides this, he seeks relief that direction be also given not to disconnect the electricity connection for non-payment of the impugned amount.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite party filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant is not consumer as electricity connection is in the name of his father and it has not been got transferred in his name; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complaint is bad for non-joinder of Punjab State Electricity Board and complaint is false and frivolous. Inter-alia his plea is that complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum. True facts are that due to inadvertence connection in question was put to Non-residential supply. Accordingly, computer had sent the bill on the basis of NRS Tariff. An application was moved by the complainant. Matter was got checked. On receipt of report to the effect that there is no shop and that the connection is being used for domestic purpose only, he was allowed to make the payment of Rs. 930/- as against the bill of Rs. 2160/- by applying domestic tariff which he has deposited on being satisfied without any pressure. Thereafter meter was reported to be defective and as such, bill of January, 2008 for Rs. 1560/- was sent on average basis. He did not deposit the amount. Again bill of March, 2008 was sent on average basis amount of which has not been deposited by him. Amount of previous bill and surcharge has been added in the bill of March, 2008. Bill for total amount of Rs. 3250/- was sent which the Board is entitled to recover. Process of replacement of the meter is going on and it would be replaced as per rules. Amount which has been demanded is on the basis of average and it is subject to adjustment. He denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1) and photocopies of bills (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-5).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, opposite party produced in evidence affidavit of Sh. Jasbir Singh, S.D.O.(Ex. R-1), photocopy of letter (Ex. R-2), Copy of consumption data (Ex. R-3) and photocopy of Register – one page (Ex. R-4).<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite party.<br /> 6. First argument pressed into service by Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel for the opposite party is that complainant is not consumer as the connection is in the name of his father Gurcharan Singh and he (complainant) has not got it transferred after his death. For this, he draw our attention to the authority Tarlok Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others 2004 (1) CLT 127 and Keshav Babu Tare Vs. Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B. & Anr. I(2004) CPJ 262.<br /> 7. Learned counsel for the complainant countered this argument by submitting that complainant is the beneficiary of the connection in the premises and he is paying the electricity consumption charges and as such, he is the consumer.<br /> 8. We have considered the rival contentions and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the complainant. Admittedly complainant is the son of Gurcharan Singh, connection holder. He is using the premises in which the connection has been installed. He is paying the electricity consumption charges. Complainant has been defined in Section 2(1)(b). In the case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative who makes a complaint is the consumer. Consumer has been defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. According to Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) Consumer means any person who 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 In this case, complainant being the beneficiary of the services hired by his father is certainly a consumer. In this view of the matter we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Satpal Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board through Secretary 2006(2) CPC 137. This authority applies to the case in hand on all the fours. In that case connection was in the name of the father of the complainant. Demand was raised by the Board. District Forum was approached. It had held that complainant is not consumer. Hon'ble State Commission held that a beneficiary is also a consumer. Order of the District Forum was set aside. With utmost regard and humility to the authority, the case of Tarlok Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others (Supra) was regarding tube-well connection. So far as the other authority relied upon by the opposite party is concerned, it is not of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Moreover, in that case connection was not in the name of the father of the complainant as is in this case. It was in the name of earlier occupant of the premises. Accordingly, we hold that complainant is consumer and this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.<br /> 9. One objection taken by the opposite party is that complaint is bad for non-joinder of Punab State Electricity Board as party. Connection of the complainant falls within the jurisdiction of the opposite party. He is claiming the amount. Opposite party has also submitted affidavit of Sh. Jasbir Singh, S.DO. No relief has been sought against the Board. Mere non-joinder of party is no ground to throw away the complaint in view of the observations of the their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Savita Garg Vs. Director National Heart Institute 2004(2) CPC 675 (SC).<br /> 10. Allegation of the complainant is that opposite party is charging the amount in the impugned bills dated 21.1.08 and 21.3.08 copies of which are Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-2 respectively by way of applying commercial tariff (NRS). Even previously in the bill dated 20.11.07 NRS Tariff was applied and bill was sent for Rs. 2160/-. An application copy of which is Ex. C-2 was moved by him (complainant) and after verifying the facts amount of Rs. 2160/- was reduced to Rs. 930/-. Bill dated 20.11.07 was issued on average basis. Opposite party admits that connection is being utilised for domestic purposes only and complainant was allowed to make payment of Rs. 930/- against the bill of Rs. 2160/- by applying domestic tariff and that amount has been deposited by him. Since opposite party allowed the deposit of Rs. 930/- out of the amount of the bill by applying domestic tariff inference is that he admits that this is the amount of the bill on average basis. Ex. R-3 is the consumption data. A perusal of the same reveals that during bi-monthlies 11/07, 1/08 and 3/08 meter is defective. Learned counsel for the opposite party failed to satisfy us that the average amount of the bills sent to the complainant goes beyond Rs. 930/- bi-monthly as per provisions of the Sales Regulations. In the bill dated 21.1.08 amount of sale of power and electricity duty has been recorded as Rs. 1341/- and 219/- respectively. In the bill dated 21.3.08 this amount has been shown as Rs. 2893/- and 357/- respectively. When the opposite party has reduced the amount of the bill dated 20.11.07 after changing NRS tariff to domestic tariff and bill has been sent on average basis, how can opposite party charge the complainant for the bills dated 21.1.08 and 21.3.08 on average basis beyond Rs. 930/- for each bill. When the meter is defective, the same can be changed by the opposite party and sent to the M.E. Lab under the rules for checking. Determination as to how much amount is payable by the complainant would be subject to the report of the M.E. Lab regarding the meter. Unless the meter which has already been installed in the premises of the complainant is changed, opposite party cannot charge the complainant beyond Rs. 930/- bi-monthly on average basis in view of what has been allowed to him for the bill dated 20.11.07 copy of which is Ex. C-4.<br /> 11. Complainant seeks that bills be corrected on actual consumption by reducing them to Rs. 250/- for each bi-monthly. This relief cannot be allowed to him in view of the fact that mater is defective and is not showing actual consumption. Bills are to be sent on average basis i.e. Rs. 930/- as discussed above till the date the meter already installed is replaced. Since opposite party is sending the bills on average basis by not charging Rs. 930/- from the complainant which should be charged at this stage, there is deficiency in service on his part.<br /> 12. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Direction deserves to be given to the opposite party to correct the bills dated 21.1.08 and 21.3.08 and send them on average basis by treating the average as Rs. 930/- for each bi-monthly till the meter is replaced. Replaced meter be sent to the M.E. Laboratory under the rules and regulations of the Board and got checked from the M.E. Laboratory. Bills sent on average basis would be subject to the adjustment as per report of the M.E. Laboratory. Complainant is craving for interest @18% and non-disconnection of the electricity supply for non-payment of the impugned amount of the bills referred to above. In view of the relief going to be accorded as above, the question of disconnection of electricity supply on account of non-payment of the bills, does not arise.<br /> 13. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite party with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite party is directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Send the bills dated 21.1.08 and 21.3.08 copies of which are Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-2 respectively to the complainant concerning his A/c No. B91NA/230383 W on average basis after correcting them and showing the average of Rs. 930/- bi-monthly.<br /> ii) Charge the complainant on average basis till the defective meter already lying installed in his premises is replaced.<br /> iii) Meter replaced be got checked from M.E. Laboratory under the rules and regulations and account of the complainant would be subject to the adjustments as per report of the M.E. Laboratory.<br /> 14. Compliance with regard to payment of cost and Point No. (i) of para No. 13 of this order be made within 30 days from the date of copy of this order.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be also consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 22-05-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member<br /> 'iki'