JUDGMENT 27.10.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 7.11.2002 passed by District Consumer Forum-Sirsa whereby his complaint bearing No.118 of 2001 was dismissed with costs of Rs.100/-. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the Complainant who was an agriculturist had got installed a tubewell in his land situated at village Suchan, Tehsil & District Sirsa with electricity connection for his tubewell bearing A/c No.JK-269AP. He had been making payment of the electricity charges regularly. The said land alongwith tubewell connection was sold to one Baldev Singh son of Sh.Daulat Singh vide registered Sale Deed dated 9.5.2000. After the purchase of land, Baldev Singh had deposited Rs.20,000/- with OPs to get the electricity connection changed in his name but the same connection was not changed despite his repeated requests to OPs. It was alleged that despite receiving Rs.10,000/- by Hazari Lal, JE the connection was not changed in the name of Baldev Singh. During July,2000 the officials of OPs checked the tubewell connection and wrongly made a case of theft of energy against Baldev Singh and an amount of Rs.16,666/- was imposed as penalty which was paid by him vide receipt dated 12.7.2000. Thereafter, OPs also raised a demand of Rs.83334/- as penalty vide notice bearing No.2503 dated 13.11.2000 which was paid by Sh.Baldev Singh vide receipt dated 15.11.2000. However, the said notice was stated to be wrong and illegal as OPs had no right to recover the penalty amount two times from the consumer. The complainant approached OPs and requested them to refund the above said amounts with interest @ 2% p.m and to withdraw the said notice but to no effect. Hence, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum,Sirsa. 4. On the other hand, OPs contested the complaint before the District Forum by filing reply inter-alia stating therein that the complainant had leveled false and baseless allegations. The checking of tubewell connection was made as per rules and accordingly penalty was imposed as per applicable Sale Circular of the Nigam. The complainant never informed OPs regarding the sale of land and the tubewell to one Baldev Singh, nor Baldev Singh informed OPs in that regard. The amount was deposited by the consumer voluntarily so as such he was not entitled to refund of any amount. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OPs and dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.100/-. Still dissatisfied, complainant filed appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Commission which has been transferred to this Commission under directions of the Hon’ble National Commission. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The only noticeable point of arguments raised on behalf of the complainant is that OPs had charged twice for one cause of action as in both the memos the reference of visit of dated 8.7.2000 was given. The memo for Rs.16,666/- was issued under the signatures of SDO on 10.7.2000 and subsequently fresh memo of Rs.83,334/- was issued on 13.11.2000. It was argued that as the connection was in the name of complainant so he filed the complaint and challenged the memos and Baldev Singh had no right to file complaint and seek refund of the penalty amounts. However, the above points of arguments have been repelled by the learned Counsel for respondents/OPs who stated that the penalty amount was rightly charged which was calculated to be Rs.1,00,000/-. Firstly, the consumer was charged Rs.16,666/- against the chargeable amount of Rs.one lac and then balance amount of Rs.83,334/- was charged. 7. There is no denying the fact, rather it is an admitted fact that the land alongwith tubewell connection was sold by the complainant vide sale deed dated 9.5.2000 to one Baldev Singh. The checking was made on 8.7.2001 when theft of energy was detected and the connection was found connected to the DHVN L.T line from 63 HVP F for which penalty was imposed and the amount of penalty was deposited by Sh.Baldev Singh who filed complaint before the District Forum for settlement of dispute with regard to Consumer A/c No.JK-269 of Village Suchan and for refund of the amount charged in excess. However, the said complaint was dismissed as fully satisfied vide order dated 5.12.2000. Thereafter, the complaint filed by Sushil Kumar (present complainant) on 20.12.2000 on the same cause of action was not maintainable. Even otherwise, the checking was made by the officials of OPs on 8.7.2000 and at that time complainant was not in possession of the land as well as tubewell connection since he had already sold the land and tubewell connection on 9.5.2000 to Baldev Singh. The said checking report and irregularity found at the spot by the raiding party has not been challenged. Even otherwise, the amount of penalty was deposited by Sh.Baldev Singh who was user/consumer of the tubewell connection at that time and the complaint filed by him before the District Forum seeking refund of the excess amount was dismissed as fully satisfied. Thus, the learned District Forum rightly observed that on the same cause of action similar relief could not be sought in two complaints and dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant Sh.Sushil Kumar. 8. In view of our foregoing discussion, we find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum dismissing the complaint with costs. Consequently the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
