State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Susheel Kumari Wife Of Satpal vs Punjab State Electricity Board And ... on 31 October, 2013
1st Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1550 of 2007
Date of Institution : 30.11.2007.
Date of Decision : 31.10.2013.
Susheel Kumari wife of Satpal resident of St. No.4, Main Bazaar Malout,
Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.
........Appellant.
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, City Malout, Distt.
Muktsar.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub
Division, City Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.
.....Respondentss.
First Appeal against the order dated
11.10.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Before:-
SH.INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
SH.VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER Present:-
None for the appellant. None for the respondentss. VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER:
This appeal was filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter called as 'appellant') under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as "Act") against the impugned order dated 11.10.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short 'District Forum') vide which the complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant purchased a house from Jaswinder Pal Singh son of Sh.Amar Singh. The electric connection bearing account No.BR33/0035 First Appeal No.1550 of 2007 2 was in the name of Shri Jaswinder Pal Singh (previous owner of the house). After purchase of the house, the appellant was using electricity of the house as beneficiary consumer of the respondents. There was mini shop run by the husband of the appellant in the house. The official of the respondents checked the connection of the appellant on 17.8.2005 and they asked the appellant to take separate electric connection for the shop in the house. The husband of the appellant took the new connection for the shop under NRS tariff vide account No.BR37/0707. Since 17.02.2006, the bills of electricity were issued separately to the shop of her husband despite it the respondents issued bill dated 11.12.2006 to the appellant claiming tariff of the house under NRS category. The appellant approached to the respondents to correct the mistake as shop had separate connection from the residence. But the respondents refused to change the tariff. Respondents had claimed Rs.98,394/- as arrear in the bill dated 11.12.2006. It was alleged that the demand raised by the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, null and void. The complaint was filed seeking direction to the respondents to withdraw the illegal demand on the basis of electricity bill dated 11.12.2006 and they be directed not to disconnect the electricity connection of the appellant.
3. Upon notice the respondents filed the written version by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law that the appellant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. The appellant is not First Appeal No.1550 of 2007 3 a consumer as per the definition of the consumer. On merit, it was admitted that the bill dated 11.12.2006 was issued to the consumer Jaswinder Pal Singh (previous owner of the house) and not to the appellant. In fact on 17.08.2005, Additional S.E. (Enforcement) inspected the connection of the consumer Satpal Singh, husband of the complainant claiming himself present owner of the house. It was submitted that the variety store under the name and style J.J.Agencies was running in the said house and electric supply of variety store was running from the domestic connection under DS Tariff. The inspection party ordered the connection be charged with NRS Tariff on the basis of the Assistant Executive Engineer report and issued the notice dated 18.08.2005 to Shri Jaswinder Pal Singh to pay Rs.5639/- on account of difference between NRS Tariff and DS Tariff which he paid willingly. But, inadvertently, the bill was issued after the date of checking, the consumer was not charged NRS tariff which was required to be charged from him. It was further submitted that the Audit party pointed the lapse. Hence, difference between NRS and DS Tariff for the month of September 2005 to September 2006 amounting to Rs.7331/- was found recoverable. The same was diverted as sundry charges in the bill dated 11.12.2006 as per Rules and Regulations of the PSEB. So, the demand is legal.
4. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents. First Appeal No.1550 of 2007 4
5. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.10.2007, the appellant has come up in the appeal on the ground that the order passed by the District Forum is based on surmises and conjectures.
7. The finding of the learned District Forum are totally preserved and are against the settled principal of law. Appellant would fall into the category of beneficial service as under Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was prayed that the appeal may be accepted and the impugned order dated 11.10.2007 of the learned District Forum may be set-aside.
8. Neither the parties nor the counsel for the parties had appeared at the time of final arguments.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum.
10. Perusal of the record shows that the electric connection bearing account No.BR33/0035 was installed in the name of Jaswinder Pal Singh previous owner of the house having connected load of 10.64 KW. The appellant has placed on record the bills of electricity Ex.C-5 to C-10 which were issued in the name of Jaswinder Pal Singh under DS category. The appellant has purchased the house from Sh.Jaswinder Pal Singh vide Sale Deed No.2211 dated 27.12.99 Ex.C-4. Sh.Satpal-husband of the appellant took the new connection bearing account BR37/0707 having connected load of 0.96 under NRS category. The respondents issued the bill to Sh.Satpal under NRS category Ex.C-5 and C-6. On dated 17.08.2005, the Additional S.E.(Enforcement) First Appeal No.1550 of 2007 5 P.S.E.B., Muktsar inspected the above said electric connection in the presence of Sh.Satpal Singh claiming to be the present owner of the house in which the aforesaid connection has been installed and found during inspection that the Variety Store under the name and style J.J.Agencies was running in the said house and the electric supply of the Variety Store was running from the above said connection charge with DS tariff and directed that the above said connection will be charged as NRS tariff as per the rules and regulations of the PSEB as per Ex.C-3. The District Forum has observed that the appellant is not a consumer and dismissed the complaint but the view of District Forum is not correct.
11. As per Section 2(d)(ii), a person who is beneficiary of such services is a consumer. In the present case, the electricity connection is the name of Jaswinder Pal Singh previous owner of the house and the appellant purchased the house from Sh.Jaswinder Pal Singh vide Sale Deed Ex.C-4. So, he is beneficiary of the respondents and a beneficiary is also a consumer. The respondents have issued the bill in dispute dated 11.12.2006 in the name of Jaswinder Pal Singh in which Rs.7451/- shown as Sundry Charges and allowances Ex.C-2.
12. The Audit Party of the respondent audited the account of the above said connection and found on scrutiny of the account that the amount of Rs.7331/- on account of difference between NRS & DS tariffs for the period from September, 2005 to September, 2006 is recoverable and the respondents placed on record the calculations from Sept, 2005 to Sept, 2006 as Ex.OP4. So, the demand of Rs.7331/- raised by the respondents is justified but not Rs. 7451/- as demanded vide the disputed bill Ex. C-2. The appellant is liable to pay Rs. 7331/- only to the respondents. First Appeal No.1550 of 2007 6
13. In view of the above discussions, the appeal is partly accepted and the order of the District Forum holding that the appellant is not a consumer is set aside and it is held that the appellant being beneficiary and vendee of the house in question where the electric connection in dispute is installed is a consumer. However the complaint filed by the appellant is without any merit and the same is dismissed and the appellant is liable to pay Rs. 7331/- only to the respondents on account of difference between NRS and DRS tariff as calculated vide Ex. OP-4. No order as to costs.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 22.10.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Judicial Member
October 31, 2013. (Vinod Kumar Gupta)
Lb/- Member