State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Avtar Singh Son Of Harbhajan Singh vs The S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity ... on 6 May, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.824 of 2006
Date of institution: 15.06.2006
Date of decision : 06.05.2010
Avtar Singh son of Harbhajan Singh resident of House No.57, Guru Teg Bahadur
Colony, Batala, Punjab.
.....Appellant
Versus
The S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, South Batala, District Gurdaspur,
Punjab..
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 11.05.2006
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Avtar Singh in person
For the respondents : Sh.Somesh Gupta, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
The appellant was having electric connection bearing A/c No.GF- 45/0076. The electric meter was stolen. The appellant had informed the respondents as also the police. DDR No.406 dated 21.04.2003 was registered with the police. The new electric meter was installed by the respondents only on 12.04.2004 i.e. about a year after the theft. However, the respondents were issuing the electricity bills regularly during this period of one year and the appellant was also making the payment of electricity bills.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondents raised the demand of Rs.1379/- in April, 2005 although there was no consumption of electric energy. The appellant had to spend a sum of Rs.14650/- on purchasing the invertor. He had to charge the battery @ Rs.20/- per day for 240 days and incurred an First Appeal No.824 of 2006 2 expenditure of Rs.4800/-. The appellant had also made the payment of electricity bills from May, 2003 to March, 2004. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short "the District Forum") for recovery of Rs.93,933/-. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
3. The respondents filed the written reply. It was not denied that the appellant was having electric connection bearing A/c No.GF-45/0076. It was pleaded that the appellant had not filed any report of the police regarding untraceability of the electric meter. The DDR only revealed that the appellant filed an affidavit before the police and it was written in the DDR that no action was required to be taken in the matter. Accordingly, no action was taken by the police.
4. The appellant had also not deposited any fee for the new electric meter. Therefore, the new electric meter could not be installed. However, after debiting the cost of the new electric meter, order dated 6.1.2004 was passed by the respondents for the installation of the new electric meter. The respondents had charged only monthly minimum charges for the period during which there was no electric meter in the premises of the appellant. The appellant had also deposited the payment of those bills of his own. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
5. The appellant proved documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14. He also filed his affidavit Ex.C15. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of Om Parkash, SDO as Ex.R1. They also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R5.
6. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 11.05.2006.
7. Hence, this appeal.
8. The prayer of the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 11.5.2006 be set aside and the appellant be awarded adequate compensation.
First Appeal No.824 of 2006 3
9. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. The admitted facts are that the appellant was having electric connection bearing A/c No.GF-45/0076. The electric meter was stolen for which the appellant had reported the matter to the police on 2.4.2003 Ex.C1. He had also lodged a complaint with the respondents on 21.4.2003 Ex.C1/A.
12. The respondents have admitted that they had received the information about the theft of the electric meter but since the appellant had failed to produce the untraceability report from the police, therefore, the new electric meter was not installed. It was also pleaded by them that the appellant had failed to deposit the fee for the new electric meter. For that reason also, the new electric meter was not installed in the premises of the appellant.
13. It was also pleaded by the respondents that they had been issuing the electricity bills on minimum charge basis and the appellant had been making the payment of electricity bills.
14. The respondents have also proved the report of their official dated 27.5.2003 Ex.R4 that the appellant be asked to arrange the wiring where the electric meter was to be installed. The order for installing the new electric meter was passed on 6.1.2004 and it was installed on 12.4.2004.
15. However, since the appellant was already using the electric energy and he was receiving the electricity bills on average basis, therefore, he has not suffered any loss and is not entitled to the recovery of the amount for purchasing the invertor or for charging the battery etc.
16. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 28.04.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No.824 of 2006 4
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER May 06, 2010.
Paritosh