| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR. Complaint No.429 of 2018 Date of Instt. 12.09.2018 Date of Decision: 02.03.2021 Kirpal Singh S/o Raghu Bans Singh R/o H. No. 1115, Ward No.13, Street Number 12, Kaki Pind, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar. ..........Complainant Versus SDO Sub Urban, Sub Division, (Punjab State Power Corporation Limited) Village Barring, District Jalandhar.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (Head Office) PSPCL Room No.205, 2nd Floor Multi Storey Building, The Mall Road, Patiala. ….….. Opposite Parties Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act. Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh, President Smt. Jyotsna, Member COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: For complainant : In person For OPs : Sh. K. L. Dua, Advocate Order Kuljit Singh, President The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein complainant averred that he is having electric connection bearing N.3000515105, consumer No.J63ET200230X and installed at H. No.318, Gali No.12, Kaki Pind Jalandhar, Suddenly, meter burnt, he informed OP, the OP removed the meter and his electricity wire to direct supply (without meter) and he given one MCO No.10000, 4875888 dated 02.11.202017. After direct supply in November 2017, OP issued him bill in November 2017, this bill was correct because they noted the meter reading before direct electricity supply. But after this they issued him averaged bill. He went to PSPCL office every week and he always used to say that his electricity meter should be installed but the OP did not set the meter. He met with officer of PSPCL but his meter not installed. After this, he has complained on 1912 Electricity Consumer Care Number they given him complaint No. 10460117 dated 29.05.2018 time 8:55 AM but his problem not solved. He complaint to SE, Jalandhar dated 07.09.2018 and Chief Engineer, Jalandhar dated 27.09.2018 but not get any result. He submitted that he given excess bill of Rs.17945/-. Lastly prayer has been made that OPs be directed to refund the money legally withhold alongwith interest. He claimed Rs.50,000/- as damages for harassment and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that meter has been installed; no cause of action arisen to complaint to file this complaint; Meter is in the name of Balbir Singh and not in the name of complainant. The complainant is neither the attorney of Balbir Singh and as such, the complaint has not been filed by duly authorized person. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs; complainant has not disclosed the true facts; as per rules and regulations if the premise is given direct supply, then the bill is to be sent of average basis. As the meter could not be installed as the same lost, so the bills used to be sent on average basis; the burnt meter was removed from the premises of consumer on the complaint. The direct supply was given. There is shortage of the meters. New meter was issued. The meter issued was lost somewhere and could not be traced and the intimation to this effect was sent to Incharge Anti Power Theft Police Station, Jalandhar for registering FIR so that the meter may not be misused; there is no deficiency in service nor there is any illegal trade practice but the meter could not be installed, as the new meter issued for the installation was lost and the same not willful act. The direct supply was given and same being used by consumer so bills were sent on average basis as per rules and regulations on account of consumption of electricity. The consumer is liable to pay charges for use of electricity. Now the meter has been installed at the premises of complainant. The present complaint is misuse of process of this Commission. On merits, it is submitted that complainant Kirpal Singh is not consumer neither he is the attorney of complainant and has no locus-standi to file this false complaint. The consumer is Balbir Singh. Complainant is not having electric account in dispute. It is admitted that connection installed at House No.313. It is also admitted that meter was burnt and information was received. The MCO was issued on 02.11.2017 and the burnt meter was removed. The same was packed and sealed as required under the law. As at that time there was shortage in the meter and no meter was in stock, so the direct supply was given to consumer Balbir Singh, as the electricity is the necessity so the direct supply was given to consumer. No twice bills were issued to complainant on average basis. It is admitted that till 08.10.2018, the meter was not installed and now the meter has been installed. No excess payment has been made as alleged. Other averments of complaint are denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of complaint with costs. In order to prove their respective version, the counsel for the parties produced on the file his respective evidence. We have heard the arguments of the parties and also gone through case file carefully. Before going into the merits of the case, we would like to observe here that electric connection in dispute does not stand in the name of the complainant.
Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is consumer of the OPs or not. It is held by our own Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in 2006 (2)CPC titled as Sat Pal Versus PSEB through its Secretary reproduced as under: xx xx xx “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (d) (i) – Consumer – Beneficiary – It is settled that a person who is staying in a house as a actual user of electricity would be a consumer being a beneficiary – In the present case electricity connection was in the name of the father of the complainant – A demand of Rs.12,370 was raised against complainant by PSEB against which District Forum was approached for necessary relief – Order of the Forum holding that complainant is not a consumer cannot be sustained – A beneficiary is also a consumer as defined in C.P. Act – Order set aside – Case remanded for fresh decision on merits. xx xx xx Further it is held in II (1998) CPJ 210 titled as P.K. Malhan Versus SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board reproduced as under:- xx xx xx “(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (d)) – Consumer – Beneficiary – Electricity – Complainant using electricity – Electricity connection in another’s name – Whether complainant is consumer being beneficiary ? (Yes).” xx xx xx In view of the above said legal position, the present complainant is a consumer of the OPs, hence the complaint is maintainable. Moreover, the OPs have argued that the meter of the complainant was lost and due to shortage of meter they were unable to install new meter. So, it presumed that if the meter was lost somewhere, then Ops have negligence in performing its duties and due to negligence of Ops, the complainant has to be suffered as he alleged in the present complaint. Further, the Ops have also failed to produce on record any ME lab report. From perusal of entire bills issued to complainant by OPs, it is crystal clear that. OPs are adamant to charge excess money unlawfully from the complainant. The OPs should issue electricity bills to complainant as per his consumption. The complainant approached office of OPs various times in this regard but OPs failed to do so. It is bounden duty of the OPs to issue the electricity bills to complainant as per his actual consumption, but this practice was not done by OPs, which is against the rules of PSPCL & Electricity Supply Instruction Manual. OPs time and again sent an exaggerated bill to him. He requested OPs many times in this regard but OPs failed to do so, which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and Ops are directed to adjust the said excessive amount of Rs.17,945/- in future consumption bills of complainant. Further, the Ops are directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. The OPs have no right to keep and misappropriate the public money. It must go back to the public. We, therefore, order that the OPs will deposit a sum of Rs.2000/-, the estimate rough amount, with the legal aid account of this Commission. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after its due compliance. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION: 2nd Day of March 2021
(Kuljit Singh) President
(Jyotsna) Member | |
