State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shanta Batra W/O Late Bharat Bhushan ... vs Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub ... on 22 October, 2013
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 217 of 2008
Date of institution: 10.03.2008
Date of decision : 22.10.2013
Shanta Batra W/o Late Bharat Bhushan Barta R/o 11924, Street No. 10,
GAD. Tajpur Road, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Indl Area-A, U-II, Ludhiana
through its Executive Engineer.
.........Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
04.01.2008 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Member Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. R.B. Gupta, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant
(hereinafter called "appellant") under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order dated 04.01.2008 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short the "District Forum") vide which the complaint of the appellant/complainant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that late husband of the appellant purchased a house from its owner Jasbir Singh vide registered sale deed dated 12.01.1996. In the said house, an electric connection bearing account No. B008/0483 was running in the name of Kuldeep Singh. After the purchase of the house, the said electric connection was being used by First Appeal No.217 of 2008 2 the appellant and the bills were paid regularly by the appellant. The appellant received bill dated 19.11.2006 in which an amount of Rs. 9585/- was added as sundry charges. The appellant inquired from the respondent regarding the amount of sundry charges, who told that the said amount pertains to the period of 1/2006 to 9/2006 during which the meter remained defective/dead and the amount was claimed on average basis of consumption of 762 units bimonthly for the period of 07/2005 to 11/2005. The complaint was filed alleging that the demand of Rs. 9585/- as sundry charges was arbitrary, null, void and illegal and the same may be quashed. It was also prayed that Rs. 15000/- may be awarded as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs. 2100/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by the respondent taking preliminary objections that the appellant does not fall under the definition of consumer as the electric connection was released/running in the name of Kuldeep Singh, the appellant had concealed the real facts. The old meter which was dead stop was changed vide MCO No. 3153 dated 06.07.2006 on 09/2006. As per the record, the meter remained dead stop from 1/2006 to 09/2006 as such the account was revised on the basis of average consumption of 762 units bye bimonthly on the basis of reading recorded for the period of 07/2005 to 11/2005. The amount already charged for the period of 01/2006 to 09/2006 was adjusted and after the adjustment of said amount, Rs. 9585/- was found recoverable from the consumer/consumers. The said amount was correctly debited in the said account vide sundry register entry 11/13R418 and was added in the bill dated 19.11.2006 as sundry charges. .
4. On merits, the same version was reiterated and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
First Appeal No.217 of 2008 3
5. The learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence and documents on record, dismissed the complaint.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Forum, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the grounds that the electric connection was being used by the appellant as such the appellant was consumer of respondent as beneficiary user of the electric connection in dispute, but this fact was not considered by the District Forum, as such the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
7. 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.
8. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum only on the ground that the appellant does not fall under the definition of consumer and as such the complaint of the appellant was not maintainable.
9. It is pleaded version of the appellant that late husband Sh. Bharat Bhushan Batra had purchased the house from Sh. Jasbir Singh vide registered sale deed dated 12.01.1996 where the electric connection in dispute was already installed/running. It is also version of the appellant that from the date of purchase of the house, the electric connection in dispute is being used by the appellant, as such, the appellant being beneficiary user of the electric connection comes under the definition of consumer.
10. The electric connection in dispute is in the name of one Kuldeep Singh, but nowhere in the complaint, the appellant has disclosed under what capacity, she was using the electric connection in dispute. The electric connection was not in the name of Jasbir Singh from whom the house was purchased by her husband. It is neither the version of the First Appeal No.217 of 2008 4 appellant nor any evidence produced by the appellant that said Jasbir Singh had purchased the house from Kuldeep Singh in whose name the electric connection was released and running in the premises which was purchased by her husband from said Jasbir Singh.
11. We have also perused the photostate copy of the sale deed Ex. C-3 vide which the house No. 1266, Tajganj, Samrala was purchased by her deceased husband Sh. Bharat Bhushan Batra, but the meter in dispute was installed/running in the name of Kuldeep Singh, House No. 1194, G. A.D Nagar, Tajpur road, Ludhiana. So from the perusal of the registered deed, it is also established that the electric connection in dispute was not installed/running in the house which was purchased by her husband from Jasbir Singh.
12. In view of the above discussion, the appellant has failed to prove that she falls under the definition of consumer and her complaint was maintainable. The appeal of the appellant is without any basis, as such the same is dismissed. Consequently, the complaint of the complainant/appellant is also dismissed. No order as to costs.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.10.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
14. 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 (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member October 22, 2013.
RK First Appeal No.217 of 2008 5 First Appeal No.217 of 2008 6 First Appeal No.217 of 2008 7