State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Om Singh S/O Sh. Beebu Ram vs Punjab State Electricity Board, on 12 August, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1243 of 2006
Date of institution : 29.9.2006
Date of Decision : 12.8.2011
Om Singh S/o Sh. Beebu Ram R/o Village Ladowal on Nurpur Road, Ludhiana.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, Head Office Patiala through its
Chairman.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Haibowal Kalan, U-II, Ludhiana.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 13.7.2006 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. Rajesh Dhiman, Advocate for
Sh. Ajit Attri, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by Om Singh-appellant/complainant (hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 13.7.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that electric connection No. JF07/1033W was running in the name of the appellant and he had been paying the bills regularly. The appellant received a bill in which arrears of electricity of A/c No. JF-07/869, which was in the name of Surinder Singh were mentioned. The appellant pleaded that Surinder Singh was living separate from him and he had a separate electric connection. The First Appeal No. 1243 of 2006 2 appellant pleaded that he was not consumer of electric connection No. JF- 07/869 nor he had any right, title or interest in the said electric connection. Since the appellant was having no interest in the said electric connection, therefore, he was not liable to pay the arrears. No rule and regulation of Electricity Act or Supply Act and Rules warranted recovery of the arrears of electric connection No. JG-07/869 from the appellant. Besides this said Surinder Singh died on 20.6.1998 and the appellant was not his legal heir or representative. Surinder Singh's mother(who is wife of the appellant) also expired. Further the arrears in the name of Surinder Singh were also time barred.
3. It was further pleaded that the appellant approached respondent No. 2-SDO several times not to disconnect his electric connection No. JF707/1033W but to no effect. Rather they disconnected the supply and threatened to remove the meter. The Appellant requested the respondents to restore his electric connection but in vain.
4. It was further pleaded that suit for permanent injunction was pending in the Court of Sh. G.C. Garg, Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ludhiana, which was dismissed in default due to non-appearance of the appellant on 2.2.2005. The appellant pleaded that he was using electric connection No. JF-07/1033 for earning his livelihood by running an Atta Chakki. Appellant had earlier filed complaint regarding the same demand but the same was withdrawn by him with liberty to file fresh on the same cause of action. It was prayed that the respondents be directed to restore electric connection No. JF-07/1033W. It was also prayed that Rs. 25,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses be awarded to him.
5. Upon notice, respondents replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable, complaint was time barred as 1st cause of action accrued on 5/2002 when Rs. 25,084/- were First Appeal No. 1243 of 2006 3 debited in the account of the appellant, electric connection No. JF-07/1033 was used for running Atta Chakki and for Welding Set, as such, District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint, appellant concealed material facts. On merits, it was pleaded that earlier the appellant had filed civil suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana, which was dismissed in default on 1.6.2005. Cause of action accrued to the appellant first time in May, 2002 on debiting Rs. 25084/- in his account. Electric connection No. JF-07/1033 was granted under NRS category to the appellant, which was used for running Atta Chakki and for Welding set so the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. True facts are that in the same premises an electric connection bearing A/c No. JG-07/869 was granted to Surinder Singh, who had since died and Rs. 25,084/- were outstanding against him. Surinder Singh's connection was permanently disconnected and amount was debited in the account of the appellant in the bill of 5/2002. The appellant challenged this demand on 21.5.2002 and the respondents filed written statement in that suit, which was dismissed in default on 1.6.2005. Thereafter, TDCO dated 3.6.2005 was issued and the connection of the appellant was disconnected on 10.6.2005 due to non-depositing of current consumption charges. As per statement of account of the connection of the appellant Rs. 44,200/- were outstanding for the period 12/2001 till 8/2005 as arrears of current consumption charges. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, dismissed the complaint.
7. Hence, the appeal.
First Appeal No. 1243 of 2006 4
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The present appeal is filed by the appellant on the grounds that the Civil Suit of the appellant was dismissed by the Civil Court in default and not decided the same on merits, as such, the complaint was maintainable. The complaint of the appellant was wrongly dismissed by the District Forum as the same was time-barred but the complaint was filed within limitation from the dismissal of the Civil Suit, which was not decided on merits.
10. There is no dispute between the parties that the demand of Rs. 25,084/- was raised from the appellant against the amount outstanding against electric connection bearing A/c No. JF-07/869, which was in the name of Surinder Singh i.e. son of the appellant/complainant, who was dead at the time of raising the demand in question. The said amount was added in A/c No. JF-07/1033W, which was in the name of the appellant and the appellant used the same for running the Atta Chakki. The demand of the respondent was challenged by the appellant in the Civil Court but the suit of the appellant was dismissed in default on 1.6.2005 by the Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana. The complaint was filed by the appellant before the District Forum by which the demand of Rs. 25084/-, against his son's account was challenged.
11. The demand was raised in the year May, 2002 but the complaint was filed by the appellant on 8.7.2005 i.e. after the expiry of about three years and no application for condonation of delay was filed. The complaint of the appellant was time barred as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is reproduced as under for ready reference:-
First Appeal No. 1243 of 2006 5
"24-A. Limitation period. - (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complaint satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
12. In the present case, the appellant/complainant had not asked for any condonation of delay nor he has shown any ground, which could bring his case within limitation. The complaint was clearly barred by limitation and no efforts have been made by the appellant to seek condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeal against the respondents fails on this score only.
13. There is no dispute that the electric connection No. A/c No. JF-07/869, was in the name of Surinder Singh, who was defaulter of the respondents and the defaulting amount of consumer Surinder Singh was added in the electric account of his father Om Singh i.e. the appellant. There are no rule and regulation of the P.S.E.B. that the defaulting amount of the son can be added in the account of his father when both were residing separately and were using separate electric connections.
14. In the above circumstances, in the interest of justice, it is directed to the respondent that no surcharge be recovered from the appellant against the amount of his son.
15. The order passed by the learned District Forum is legal and valid and the same is affirmed with the observation that the surcharge be First Appeal No. 1243 of 2006 6 not imposed on the amount in dispute. The appeal being without any merit is dismissed.
16. If any excess amount then the amount in dispute was deposited by the appellant with the respondent, the same be adjusted in the future bills of the appellant.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 3.8.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
August 12, 2011. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member