DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:754 of 2010] Date of Institution : 19.11.2010 Date of Decision : 14.09.2011 --------------------------------------- Sh. Baljit Singh resident of House No.2254, Sector 15, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. The Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Sector 15, U.T., Chandigarh. 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Department, Sector 15, U.T., Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESI DENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: None for the complainant. Sh. Atul Sethi, Govt. Pleader for the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Baljit Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following directions to OPs:- i) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that he is resident of House No.2254, Sector 15, Chandigarh. Electricity Meter bearing No.CHEP48793Z is installed in the said premises. According to the complainant, he was regularly paying the electricity bills as per the reading taken by the Department. On 10.9.2009, the said meter became defective. Due information of which was given to the OP by the complainant. OPs installed the new meter in place of the defective meter. After installation of the new meter, he was again paying the bills regularly. According to the complainant, despite regular payment of the bill, OPs have raised arrears of Rs.5,206/- towards him vide bill dated 6.11.2010. It is averred that the complainant is ready to pay the actual usage of Rs.2,863/- as shown in the bill and not the arrears. According to the complainant, the action of OPs in raising the demand of Rs.5,206/- as arrears amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. On the other hand, in the written reply filed by OPs, a specific preliminary objection as been raised as regards the maintainability of the complainant. According to the OPs, the complainant is not a consumer of OPs as the electricity connection in question is in the name of one Sh. Mukhtiar Singh (bearing Account No.1509/225401K). It has further been pleaded that the previous meter No.CHEP 26239 was replaced with the new meter No.CHEP48793 as the same was found dead stop. As regards the charging of Rs.5,206/-, it has been pleaded by the OPs that the same has been charged for the period the previous meter remained inoperative on average basis as compared with the previous six months consumption of the consumer. It has been pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the complainant on the date of final hearing i.e. 08.09.2011 and therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 5. We have heard the learned Govt. Pleader for the OPs and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. Before going into the merits of the case, suffice it to say that the OPs have taken a specific objection as regards the maintainability of the complaint. The case of OPs is that the complainant is not a consumer qua OPs as the electricity connection in question is in the name of some other person namely Sh. Mukhtiar Singh bearing Account No.1509/225401K. The complainant has himself placed on record the electricity bills. From bare perusal of these bills, it is apparent that the electricity meter bearing Account No.204/1509/225401K is not in the name of the complainant. It is in the name of one Mukhtiar Singh resident of House No.2254, 15-C, Chandigarh. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant is in a tenant of Mukhtiar Singh or is beneficiary in other way. Thus, it is established on record that the complainant is not a consumer qua OPs. So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this very score alone. 7. In view of the above findings, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 14th September 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.754 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 08.09.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. Announced. 14.09.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
