State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manjit Singh Son Of Sher Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 22 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 199 of 2004
Date of institution : 19.2.2004
Date of Decision : 22.1.2010
Manjit Singh son of Sher Singh, resident of Village Khurani, District Sangrur.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.
2. SDO, AEE, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban, Sub Division,
Sangrur.
....Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 24.12.2003 of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal, President
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate and Ms. Rajwinder Kaur, Advocate For the respondents : Sh. Ajay Nara, Advocate PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by Manjit Singh(in short, "the appellant") against the order dated 24.12.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur(in short, "the District Forum"), by which the complaint of the appellant was partly allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant alongwith his brother Gurjit Singh had applied for tubewell electricity connection. Respondents raised a demand of Rs. 20,000/-, out of which Rs. 6,000/- was adjustable in future bills. Appellant deposited the same on 16.3.1994. Appellant's brother had died and after that the appellant had used the electricity connection. Respondent's vide notice dated 11.1.2002 raised a First Appeal No. 199 of 2004 2 demand of Rs. 24,350/-. Appellant requested the respondents to provide the copy of demand notice, which was issued to him initially for the release of the tubewell connection and also requested to provide the details of the demand of Rs. 24,350/-. Respondent had not provided him the copy of the initial demand notice and details of the additional demand of Rs. 24,350/-. In July, 2003, respondents have issued fresh demand notice of Rs. 26,750/- in which Rs. 24,350/- was mentioned as previous demand and Rs. 2435/- was mentioned as penalty charges. The appellant pleaded that this demand was illegal and prayed that the respondents be directed to withdraw the same, refund Rs. 6,000/- charged in excess at the time of initial release with interest @ 24% per annum and also claimed Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.
3. Respondents replied by taking preliminary objection that the appellant was not a consumer of the respondents. It was admitted that the connection was applied and the same was released to Gurjeet Singh. Rs. 21,000/- was demanded, which comprised of Rs. 5,000/- as transformer charges, Rs. 14,000/- for service connection charges and Rs. 2,000/- for feeder augmentation. This demand was based on previous estimate number 5-3523/S/671 in which the length of service line was estimated to be 280 meters but it was found that proper voltage was not transmitted to the motor of Gurjeet Singh, as such, previous estimate had to be revised. The length of the required service line was found to be 767 meters, so additional demand was raised accordingly. The appellant had not paid additional amount of Rs. 24,350/- in time, therefore, penalty of Rs. 2435/- was added and demand of Rs. 26,750/- was raised correctly. All other allegations were denied and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, partly allowed the complaint. The First Appeal No. 199 of 2004 3 respondents were directed to withdraw the demand Ex. C-2 of Rs. 24,350/- dated 11.1.2002.
5. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant with the prayer that relief claimed in the complaint may please be granted.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Rs. 21,000/- was deposited by Gurjit Singh brother of the appellant for the release of the tubewell connection against the estimate No. 5-3523/S/671. Out of the said amount, Rs. 5,000/- were raised as transformer charges, Rs. 14,000/- were raised as service connection charges and Rs. 2,000/- were raised for feeder augmentation. No demand of Rs. 6,000/- out of the above demand was raised nor the same was deposited by the appellant with the respondents as adjustable in future bills. The prayer of the appellant that Rs. 6,000/- was adjustable in future bills was not correct as such, the appellant is not entitled for the same.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had deposited Rs.6,000/- with respondent No. 2 at the time of compliance of the demand notice, which was to be adjusted in the future bills of the appellant by respondent No. 2 but the same was not adjusted by respondent No. 2.
9. We have gone through the demand notice Ex. R-2, which was issued by respondent No. 2 to the appellant for the release of tubewell connection. Rs. 21,000/- was to be deposited by the brother of the appellant(Rs. 5,000/- as Transformer Charges plus Rs. 13,000/- as service connection charges and Rs. 2,000/- as feeder augmentation charges). The detail of the same was given at Sr. No. 30 of the conditions of demand First Appeal No. 199 of 2004 4 notice Ex. R-2 issued by respondent No. 2 to the brother of the appellant, namely, Gurjeet Singh.
10. The said Gurjeet Singh deposited only Rs. 20,000/- in compliance of the demand notice Ex. R-2. But as per the demand notice Ex. R-2, the demand of Rs. 6,000/- was not raised by respondent No. 2 from the applicant Gurjeet Singh, which was to be adjusted in the future bills of the applicant. As such, the version of the appellant that Gurjeet Singh deposited Rs. 6,000/- with respondent No. 2 for the adjustment of the same in future bills is not correct.
11. The appellant also not produced any evidence to prove that the deceased applicant had deposited Rs. 6,000/- with the respondents as per his version. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by the appellant on 16.3.1994 and the complaint was filed by the appellant on 24.7.2003, after a lapse of 9 years, as such, the complaint of the appellant is also not within limitation as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. The District Forum has quashed the additional demand of the respondents of Rs. 24,350/-, which was raised vide Ex. C-2 vide its order under appeal.
13. From the above discussion, we are of the view that the appeal of the appellant is meritless and the order of the District Forum is based on the evidence as well as on documents produced by both the parties. The same is affirmed.
14. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed without any order as to costs.
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 11.1.2010 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No. 199 of 2004 5
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Justice S.N. Aggarwal)
President
(Lt. Col.Darshan Singh[Retd.])
Member
January 22, 2010 (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member
First Appeal No. 199 of 2004 6