BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 58 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 28.05.2008<br /> Date of Service: 19.06.2008<br /> Decided On: 25.09.2008<br /> <br /> Narinder Kumar (aged 40 years) son of Sham Lal, resident of 343, Jawahar Nagar, Street No.7, Moga.<br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban, Moga.<br /> 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban, Moga.<br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Vaneet Kumar, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.N.K.Palta, Adv. counsel for the OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh. Narinder Kumar complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary and others-opposite parties (herein-after referred to as ‘Board’) directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.4875/- raised vide notice no.1314 dated 19.06.2007 and also to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Narinder Kumar complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.JN/51/0191 installed at his residential premises in the name of one Ramesh Kumar from whom the premises in question has been purchased by the complainant. That the complainant has been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That all of a sudden, he received a memo no.1314 dated 19.6.2007 in which the OPs-Board demanded Rs.4875/- on account of non-working of the meter. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Disputes Settlement Committee and deposited Rs.900/- for the redressal of his grievance, but to no avail. That the complainant never used the electricity to that extent. That the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board time and again and requested to withdraw the impugned amount, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.10000/- as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.N.K.Palta Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the complainant has got no locus standie to file the present complaint before this Forum. On merits, it was averred that first of all, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the Act because the disputed connection has been installed in the name of one Ramesh Kumar with whom the complainant Narinder Kumar has no concern whatsoever. Moreover, the complainant has not disclosed in what capacity he has filed the present complaint and claiming himself as a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board. It was further averred that the complainant took the matter before the Disputes Settlement Committee, who duly considered and decided the matter finally and directed the consumer to deposit the amount within four days. So the complainant has got no right or authority to reopen the matter in question again which has already been decided by the competent authority. In fact, the meter installed at the premises of the consumer was burnt and on his application, the same was replaced vide MCO no.170, Book no.65820 dated 2.5.2007. Thereafter, the account of the consumer for the period w.e.f. 1/2007 to 5/2007 was overhauled as per regulations 73.1.2 of the Sales Regulation of the PSEB taking the average of 7/2006 to 11/2006 and charged Rs.4875. Thereafter, the OPs-Board issued a notice no.1314 to the consumer on 19.6.2007 to deposit the impugned amount within 7 days, but he availed the other remedy before the Disputes Settlement Committee, who vide its order dated 5.3.2008 directed the consumer to deposit the remaining amount within 4 days. Now the complainant has come to this Forum for the redressal of his grievance instead of filing the appeal before Appellate Authority of Disputes Settlement Committee. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of notice Ex.A2, copy of letter Ex.A3 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar Sr.XEN and Gurmeet Singh, AE, copy of MCO Ex.R2, copy of ledger Ex.R3, copy of letter Ex.R4, copy of application Ex.F5, copy of data Ex.R6, copy of notice Ex.R7, copy of application Ex.R8 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Vineet Mittal ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.N.K.Palta ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.Vaneet Mittal ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.4875/- raised vide notice no.1314 dated 19.06.2007 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never used the electricity to that extent. <br /> 8. On the other hand, Sh.N.K.Palta ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has argued that the present complaint is not maintainable because the electric connection is in the name of Ramesh Kumar and complainant has no concern whatsoever with the electric connection in question. Moreover, the OPs-Board never sent the aforesaid notice to the complainant Narinder Kumar. Thus, the complainant has no right, title or interest to file the present complaint. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has some force. Admittedly, the electric connection in question was installed in the name of one Ramesh Kumar. There is not an iota of evidence on record if the complainant had purchased the premises / property from said Ramesh Kumar and thereafter got transferred the electric connection in his name or filed any application before OPs-Board for transfer of the said connection in his name or taken the said premises on rental basis from its original consumer. In this regard, section 2 (1)(d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down that a ‘consumer’ means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purposes. So Narinder Kumar complainant has failed to prove that he has become a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board. Our this view stands fortified by Hon’ble Maharashtra State Commission, Mumbai in 2004(2)CLT page 235 titled as Keshav Babu Tare Vs. Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B. and another. <br /> 9. For arguments sake, if it is presumed that the complaint is maintainable even then the impugned demand is legal and valid and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. Admittedly, the meter of the complainant was being burnt and the same was replaced vide MCO no.170, Book no.65820 dated 2.5.2007. His account for the period w.e.f. 1/2007 to 5/2007 was overhauled as per regulations 73.1.2 of the Sales Regulation of the PSEB taking the average of 7/2006 to 11/2006 and a sum of Rs.4875/- was demanded from him to which they are legally entitled to recovery. <br /> 10. Moreover, it is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant has deposited Rs.900/- and also got referred his matter before Disputes Settlement Committee. Therefore, when the matter between the parties has already been decided by the Disputes Settlement Committee, the complainant has no right to file the present complaint against the OPs-Board before this Forum. So he can not be allowed to choose the alternative remedy of approaching this Forum. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter between the parties when the dispute has already been decided by departmental Disputes Settlement Committee.<br /> 11. To prove their assertion, the OPs-Board produced the joint affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar Sr.XEN and Gurmeet Singh, AE Ex.R1, copy of MCO Ex.R2, copy of ledger Ex.R3, copy of letter Ex.R4, copy of application Ex.R5, copy of data Ex.R6, copy of notice Ex.R7 and copy of application Ex.R8. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and other documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A3 and we discard the same. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove if there was any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs-Board. <br /> 12. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order shall be supplied to the parties free of costs and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member Member President<br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:25.09.2008.<br /> <br /> hrg*<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />