State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Avtar Singh vs Asstt. Executive Engineer on 21 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1352 of 2004
Date of institution: 02.11.2004
Date of decision : 21.07.2010
Avtar Singh Narula r/o Kothi No.512, Phase XI, Mohali, District Ropar.
.....Appellant
Versus
Asstt. Executive Engineer (Commercial), 66 KV Sub Division, Industrial Area,
Mohali, District Ropar.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 29.09.2004
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.S.K.Gupta, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
The appellant had electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0988 under domestic category. He had also another electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0830 in SAS Nagar (Mohali). He was making the payment of electricity bills regularly.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondent issued bill dated 15.5.2004 regarding account No.CR51/0988 in which an amount of Rs.1927/- was shown as sundry charges. Earlier this amount was shown in account No.CR51/0830. It was disconnected and this amount was shown as sundry charges against another electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0988.
3. It was further pleaded that this amount of Rs.1927/- has been shown in the bill dated 15.5.2004 illegally in account No.CR51/0988 without assigning First Appeal No.1352 of 2004 2 any reason. The bill for Rs.223/- against electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0830 was payable upto 1.6.2004 but it was disconnected without assigning any reason. Hence, the complaint for setting aside the demand of Rs.1927/- shown as sundry charges in the bill dated 15.5.2004 against electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0988 and for restraining the respondents to disconnect the electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0988. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
4. The respondents filed the written reply by way of affidavit of V.K.Mahajan, Additional S.E. Operation Division Special. It was admitted that the appellant had electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0988 under the domestic category. He had another electric connection No.CR51/0830 in SAS Nagar (Mohali).
5. It was further pleaded that the appellant had not deposited his bill within the prescribed period against electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0830. This electric connection was disconnected and therefore, this amount was demanded as sundry charges against electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0988. The demand was legal and valid. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C1. He also proved bills Ex.C2 and Ex.C3. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of V.K.Mahajan, Additional SE (Operation) Division as Ex.R1. They also produced documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R3.
7. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 29.9.2004.
8. Hence, this appeal.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 29.9.2004 be set aside. First Appeal No.1352 of 2004 3
10. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed. Written arguments were also filed.
11. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
12. The appellant had the electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0830 in SAS Nagar (Mohali). The electricity bill was issued by the respondents which has been proved by the appellant as Ex.C3. The electricity bill against electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0988 has been proved as Ex.C2 in which Rs.1927/- have been shown as sundry charges and allowances.
13. The respondents have produced on the file a detailed chart relating to account No.CR51/0988 as Ex.R2. It reveals that the respondents had issued the bill against electric connection No.CR51/0830 for the month of September, 2003 for an amount of Rs.2346/- in which Rs.1308/- were charged on the basis of the report of the audit party dated 5.8.2003 as average charges from May, 2001 to September, 2001 as the meter was burnt but the appellant had deposited only a sum of Rs.742/- on 9.9.2003.
14. Thereafter, the respondents had issued the bill for November, 2003 to the tune of Rs.1745/- which was not paid. The respondents again issued the bill for a sum of Rs.1945/- in January, 2004 including the amount of Rs.1745/-. It was again not paid by the appellant. Then the respondent had issued the bill for March, 2004 for a sum of Rs.2105/- which also included an amount of Rs.1945/- of the previous bill. Thereafter, again the respondents had issued the bill for the month of May, 2004 in which the previous amount was also claimed as Rs.2105/-. It was not paid and the account bearing No.CR51/0830 was permanently disconnected. Therefore, this amount of Rs.1945/- was transferred by the respondents to the other account of the appellant bearing A/c No.CR51/0988.
15. The respondents had claimed Rs.1308/- as arrears on the basis of the audit report dated 5.8.2003 for the period from May, 2001 to September, 2001 as the meter of electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0830 was burnt. First Appeal No.1352 of 2004 4
16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment reported as "Jagmail Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2006 (2) CPC 135". However, the facts of this case related to the removal of the electric meter which was not packed in a card board box nor the consumer was called in the ME Lab. Therefore, this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance upon the judgment reported as "Punjab State Electricity Board v. Kuldip Singh, 2004 (1) CPC 657" in which the balance amount was demanded and this Court had held that the department cannot recover the balance amount beyond the period of 3 years.
18. This view of law taken by this Bench is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "M/s Swastic Industries v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1101" and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the demand can be raised by the respondents for the amount left out because of an inadvertent mistake even after the expiry of 3 years.
19. The law has also been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as "Surjit Singh v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 229" that if the telephone connection was in the name of the husband and a separate telephone connection was in the name of the wife and the wife was not making the payment of telephone bills, even then the telephone line of the husband can be disconnected if the wife was financially dependent on her husband.
20. In the present case, the same proposition of law would be applicable. Therefore, the respondents were fully justified in recovering the amount of electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0830 from his other electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0988. Moreover, since the appellant had failed to make the payment of electric connection bearing A/c No.CR51/0830 continuously, therefore, the First Appeal No.1352 of 2004 5 disconnection of electric connection was justified. Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.7.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
22. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
July 21 , 2010.
Paritosh