State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kuldeep Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 30 August, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1066 of 2007.
Date of Institution: 06.08.2007.
Date of Decision: 30.08.2013.
Kuldeep Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, Resident of House No.2736/2,
Street No.5, Jammu Colony, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, The Mall,
Patiala.
2. Punjab State Electricity Board, Unit-II, Model Town, Ludhiana,
through Assistant Executive Engineer.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
14.06.2007 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Vivek Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. H.S. Ghumman, Advocate, counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------- INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Sh. Kuldeep Singh, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 14.06.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "the District Forum").First Appeal No.1066 of 2007 2
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter called as "the respondents"), making the averments that he was having electric connection Account No.MT-34/1224 under domestic category and meter No.494055 was installed in the premises. The appellant has been paying the bills regularly as per the consumption. The appellant has cleared all the previous bills and never violated any rules or regulations of the respondents and he was not in arrears.
3. The appellant received a bill dated 28.10.2006 for Rs.45,990/- in which a sum of Rs.45,910/- were shown as sundry charges and allowances. The appellant approached respondent no.2 to find out the breakup of Rs.45,910/-, but respondent no.2 did not cooperate and asked the appellant either to deposit the bill before the due date, or to face the consequences of disconnection of electricity. The amount shown in the impugned bill as sundry charges is illegal and against the rules and regulations and the appellant is not liable to pay the same. No notice was served upon by the appellant before raising the demand of Rs.45,910/-. The status of the meter was 'OK' and no defect was ever pointed out. The act and conduct of the respondents amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the appellant suffered lot of mental harassment and is entitled to compensation.
4. It was prayed that the respondents be directed to withdraw the bill dated 28.10.2006 and to quash the demand of Rs.45,910/- and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
5. In the written version filed on behalf of the respondents, preliminary objections were raised that the present complaint is false First Appeal No.1066 of 2007 3 and frivolous and the appellant has concealed the material facts. True facts are that earlier in the same premises, one electric connection bearing Account No.MT-34/17 of SP category under Unit No.2 of Model Town Division Special was installed in the name of Sh. Mohinder Singh, who was further of the appellant and a sum of Rs.45,910/- was outstanding against the said connection which was not deposited by the father of the appellant and the connection Account No.MT-34/17 was permanently disconnected. On 21.09.2006, Sh. Avtar Singh, JE conducted the checking of the above premises, where earlier connection No.MT-34/17 was running in the name of Sh. Mohinder Singh, and made the site report that in the same premises, one electric connection under domestic category is running, bearing Account No.MT-34/1224 in the name of Sh. Kuldeep Singh as per record of the PSEB. On the basis of this report, the defaulting amount of Account No. MT-34/17 was transferred in the account of the appellant, being in the same premises and the earlier connection relates to father of the appellant and the appellant is responsible to deposit the outstanding defaulting amount of the above connection.
6. On merits, it was admitted that Account No.MT-34/1224 is installed in the premises and the meter is installed. It was further submitted that the current bill dated 28.10.2006 was issued to the appellant against the connection Account No.MT-34/1224 and a sum of Rs.45,910/- was shown as sundry charges and remaining amount was of current bill. The appellant was explained about the inclusion of this amount, but he failed to make the payment. Other similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
First Appeal No.1066 of 2007 4
7. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
8. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the appellant, being the son, is legal heir of his father and is liable to pay the amount of the demand. On account of pious obligations, the appellant is duty bound to pay the debt of his father. The said amount was not paid by the father of the appellant and his connection was disconnected, but the fact remains that the demand of one connection cannot be added in the account of another connection, but keeping in view the relationship of father and son, the District Forum was of the view that the son duty bound to pay the amount of this demand, and dismissed the complaint.
9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.06.2007, the appellant has come up in appeal.
10. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the appellant as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents.
11. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant, pleadings were repeated. It was further submitted that the District Forum has erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.45,910/-, due from his father. Even if the electricity dues are payable by the father of the appellant, then the same should be recovered from the property of the father of the appellant. The respondents cannot recover any dues from the appellant. It is settled proposition of law that any amount outstanding First Appeal No.1066 of 2007 5 against one electric connection cannot be added in the bill of another connection. The District Forum has not taken notice of the evidence and the law. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Commission in case "Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Garjit Kaur", 2004(1) CLT-622 .
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the arrears outstanding against the connection in the same premises can be recovered from the person, occupying the premises. The order under appeal is legal and the appeal may be dismissed. Reliance was placed on "K.G. Purushothaman Vs Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr.", AIR-2007 Kerala-201 and "Suraj K. R. Vs Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr.", AIR-2006 Kerala-194.
13. We have considered the respective submissions of the parties and have minutely scrutinized the entire record.
14. The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the grounds that the appellant is morally liable to pay the electric bills of his father. The moral as well as pious obligation grounds are not to be considered above the law, rules and regulations. Admittedly, the electric connection bearing Account No. MT-34/17 of SP category was installed in the name of Sh. Mohinder Singh father of the appellant and a sum of Rs.45,910/- was outstanding against the connection in the name of the father of the appellant, which was not deposited and the said account number was permanently disconnected. Before installing the electric connection under domestic category bearing No.MT-34/1224 in the name of the appellant in the same premises, the officials of the respondents should have got the arrears outstanding in the name of the father of the appellant deposited, but First Appeal No.1066 of 2007 6 that was not done. Sh. Avtar Singh, JE inspected the premises on 21.09.2006 and made the report, but that report is of no help to the respondents. As stated above, the official, who allowed the installation of the electric connection in the name of the appellant, should have been vigilant enough, to find out whether any arrears are outstanding against the premises where the new connection was to be installed, but that was not done and there are assumable reasons and for that, now the respondents cannot recover the same from the appellant. This Commission way back in 2004 in case "Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Garjit Kaur" (supra) held that the amount outstanding against one connection cannot be added in the account of other connection.
15. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents i.e. "K.G. Purushothaman Vs Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr." (supra) and "Suraj K. R. Vs Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr" (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
16. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down, the order passed by the District Forum is against the law and is not sustainable.
17. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 14.06.2007 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant is allowed and the demand of Rs.45,910/- made vide bill dated 28.10.2006 is quashed. Rs.3,000/- are awarded as compensation, payable by the respondents to the appellant/complainant within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
First Appeal No.1066 of 2007 7
18. Above amount, or part thereof, if deposited by the appellant with the respondents, the same may be adjusted in the future bills, or may be refunded.
19. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.08.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member August 30, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)