State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Poonam Wife Of Sh. Bhagwan Dass, ... vs The Punjab State Electricity Board, ... on 1 October, 2013
F.A. No. 1048 of 2008 1
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1048 of 2008
Date of institution: 22.09.2008
Date of decision : 01.10.2013
Poonam wife of Sh. Bhagwan Dass, Advocate, R/o Street No. 2, B-66,
Officer Colony, Sangrur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Punjab State Electricity Board, through its
Chairman/Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, (S.D.O.) Punjab State Electricity
Board, Sub Urban Division, Sangrur.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated
03.09.2008 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. Jatin Arora, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. H.S. Ghuman, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER
Smt. Poonam/complainant-appellant (hereinafter called "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 03.09.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "the District Forum") vide which her complaint was dismissed on the ground that complicated and complex questions of law and facts are involved and the appellant/complainant had also levelled allegations against the respondents that signature of her husband was obtained on blank papers and blank cheques of the bank, as such the District Forum is not competent to decide the complaint.
F.A. No. 1048 of 2008 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had purchased the house from Harinder Singh in whose name the electric connection in dispute was released and installed by the respondents vide sale deed 12.03.2004 through his attorney. The appellant was using the said connection from the date of purchase. The appellant received a bill dated 08.03.2008 of an amount of Rs. 13,710/- in which Rs. 11,200/- was added as sundry charges and Rs. 1980/- as arrears. The appellant was paying the bills regularly and nothing was due towards her. The appellant requested the respondents to rectify the bill 08.03.2008 but the respondents refused to rectify the same rather threatened if the alleged amount would not deposited then her electric connection would be disconnected. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs. 11,200/- of sundry charges and Rs. 1980/- of arrears and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as Rs. 7700/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by the respondent taking legal objections that the appellant does not come under the definition of consumer, the appellant had no locus standi to file the complaint. The dispute between the parties being technical could not decided in summarily, the rule of resjudicata was applicable as the earlier complaint filed by the appellant against the respondents was already dismissed by the District Forum on 17.12.2007 and the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.
4. On merits, it was pleaded that electric connection No. KP- 68/1830 was released and installed in the name of Harinder Singh which was not got transferred by the appellant in her name after purchase of the house till filing of the complaint as such the appellant does not fall under F.A. No. 1048 of 2008 3 the definition of consumer and the complaint of the appellant was liable to be dismissed being not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. It was admitted that bill of Rs. 13,710/- was issued to Harinder Singh who was the consumer of the respondents and no bill for the amount in dispute was issued to the appellant, as such the complaint of the appellant was not maintainable. The appellant neither informed the respondents regarding the change of ownership of the house nor applied for the change of name of the electric connection in dispute to the respondents. The dismissal of the complaint was prayed with costs.
5. Rejoinder/replication was also filed, the legal objections were denied as wrong and the remaining Paras of the reply were also denied as wrong and the facts pleaded in the complaint were reiterated.
6. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed and relegated to the Civil Court.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Forum, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the grounds that the finding of the District Forum to relegate the complaint to the Civil Court is not correct as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the Hon'ble National Commission. There are no complicated questions of law and facts are involved as such the order of the District Forum is liable to be set- aside.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties.
9. There is dispute between the parties whether the complaint of the appellant is maintainable, whether the appellant comes under the definition of consumer and regarding the demand of Rs. 11,200/- added as arrears and Rs. 1980/- as rent of the service lines in the bill dated 08.03.2008.
F.A. No. 1048 of 2008 4
10. The District Forum has relegated the complaint to the Civil Court being the matter in dispute as complicated. The parties had already closed the evidence and the dispute between the parties is only regarding amount of Rs. 11,200/- and Rs. 1980/- which was added as arrears and rent of the service lines in bill dated 08.03.2008. No complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Punj Lloyd Limited versus Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd.", 2009 CTJ 1 (Supreme Court) (CP) in para 15 as follows:-
".....Every complaint of the consumer is related to a dispute and will raise disputed questions and contentions. If there was no dispute, then there would be no complaint. Therefore, the ground for rejection of the complaint, namely, "it raises disputed questions and contentions" was definitely irrelevant..........."
11. The District Forum has not decided the complaint on merits and referred the matter to be decided by the competent Civil Court but evidence of both the parties is already placed on the District Forum file. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Dr. J.J. Merchant and others Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi", 2002(6) SCC 635 that 'the State Commission and District Forum are headed by retired High Court Judges and officers of District Judge level and in our view, this is not such a case which cannot be decided by the 'Consumer Fora' after obtaining evidence and if need be after getting an expert opinion'.
12. We have perused the sale deed dated 11.03.2004 Ex. C-20 vide which the appellant had purchased the house from Harinder Singh through his General Power of attorney Sh. Bhagwan Dass who is husband of the appellant. Said Harinder Singh had no where disputed regarding the sale of house to the appellant. It is admitted case of the respondents that the electric connection No. KP-68/1830 was installed/released in the said F.A. No. 1048 of 2008 5 house. The respondents had not produced any evidence to rebut the version of the appellant that the said house was not purchased by the appellant vide sale deed Ex. C- 20 from Harinder Singh in whose name the electric connection in dispute was released. The respondents also failed to prove that the appellant was not using the connection in dispute. So as per section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, the appellant comes under the definition of consumer being beneficiary user of the electric connection in dispute, as such the complaint of the appellant was maintainable.
13. We have perused the bill Ex. C-2 dated 08.03.2008 in which Rs. 11,200/- and Rs. 1980/- are added as arrears and rent of the service lines but no detail of the same is given in the bill. We have also perused the reply filed by the respondents to the complaint but no where in the said reply, detail of the amount in dispute is given by the respondents.
14. Instruction No. 93 (i) and 93 (ii) of Instruction No. 93 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual are applicable for the recovery of the arrears which were not originally billed which are reproduced:-
93. PAYMENT OF ARREARS NOT ORIGINALLY BILLED:
93.1 There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/unauthorized use of electricity or demand/load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff/multiplication factor or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices etc. In all such cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges shall be F.A. No. 1048 of 2008 6 shown as arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills shall be issued separately giving complete details of the charges in regard to theft cases, slowness of meters, wrong connections of the meter and unauthorized of use electricity etc. In such cases the copy of relevant instructions under which the charges have been levied shall also be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of cases by consumer forums if approached by the consumer.
93.2 Limitation Under Section 56 (2) of the Act no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of chares for electricity supplied.
So as per the above instructions, no supplementary bill was issued giving complete details of the charges levied. No copy of the relevant instruction under which the charges had been levied was also supplied to the appellant. The respondents had also not mentioned the date in the bill or reply to the complaint from which the amount in dispute was due from the appellant.
15. The findings of the District Forum that the District Forum was not competent to decide the complaint are not correct and the order of the District Forum is set-aside.
16. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the appellant is partly accepted. The respondents are directed to issue supplementary bill giving complete details of the charges in regard to the amount of Rs. 11,200/- and Rs. 1980/- with the copy of the relevant instructions. The demand in dispute was raised by the respondents in bill dated 08.03.2008, F.A. No. 1048 of 2008 7 as per instruction of 93 (ii) of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual the respondents are entitled for the recovery of amount which was outstanding against the appellant from the date of 09.03.2006 i.e. only for two years as the respondents had not shown continuously the amount in dispute as arrears in the previous bills.
17. The respondents will issue the separate bill to the appellant for the amount in dispute within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. If any excess amount was deposited by the appellant regarding this disputed amount, it will be refunded back to the appellant by the respondents with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit till its refund. However if the appellant had not deposited any amount till the issuance of the separate bill, she will deposit the same within one month with respondent No. 2 month from the receipt of the separate bill from the respondents.
18. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.09.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
(Piare Lal Garg)
Member
October 01, 2013 (Jasbir Singh Gill)
RK Member
F.A. No. 1048 of 2008 8