Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President, Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member and Ms. Meena Verma, Member
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HPSEB LIMITED, - Appellant
Versus
RAVINDER SOOD - Respondent
First Appeal No. 281 of 2016
Decided on : 01-12-2016
Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is the interpretation and application of Instruction No. 44.3 of Sales Manual and Rules in justifying the inclusion of charges from other connections in the bill for a specific connection.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Electricity Connection Dispute - Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Instruction No. 44.3 of Sales Manual and Rules
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint against the appellant, an electricity supplier, alleging that a high amount bill was issued for his electricity connection due to the inclusion of charges from three other connections in his father's name. The appellant claimed that the charges were added as the connections were in the name of the same person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's claim of partitioning the property was not pleaded in the complaint and thus should not have been relied upon. It also noted that one of the connections was not in the name of the respondent's father, as claimed by the appellant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the inclusion of charges from other connections in the bill for the respondent's connection was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Instruction No. 44.3 of Sales Manual and Rules, which allowed adding the amount due in respect of one connection to the bill of another connection in the same name.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and directed the appellant to issue a revised bill, omitting the amount due in respect of one of the connections not in the name of the respondent's father.
ORDER
Justice Surjit Singh, President. (Oral) - Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 13.07.2016, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it by respondent Ravinder Sood, has been allowed and bill dated 13.07.2015, in respect of electricity connection No. AM-1000083 for an amount of Rs. 2,95,752/-, quashed and a direction given to the appellant not to claim the aforesaid amount of money. In addition, the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/-, as damages and Rs. 3,000/-, as litigation expenses.
2. The facts of the case are not complicated; rather the same are very plain and simple. Respondent filed a complaint alleging that he is a consumer of electricity supplied by the appellant, against meter No. AM-1000083, installed in the building owned by him and that he had been paying all the bills of consumption of electricity, in respect of the said meter connection, regularly. It was alleged that the respondent received bill in the month of July, 2015, demanding a sum of Rs. 2,95,752/- and when he made inquires with the appellant as to why the amount of bill was so high, he was informed that electricity charges due in respect of three other connections, in the name of his father Janki Dass had been added to the bill, in question, because the electricity charges in respect of the said other three connections, were not being paid, for quite long a time. He alleged that he had nothing to do with three other connections in the name of his father and, therefore, the amount due on account of consumption of electricity against those connections, could not have been added to the bill, in respect of his connection. On these allegations, he sought a direction to the appellant not to demand the amount of Rs. 2,95,752/-, demanded through the bill, in question, and to exclude from that bill the amount alleged to be due, in respect of other three meters.
3. Appellant filed a reply, in which it was stated that the meter claimed by the respondent to be installed in his building was in fact in the name of his father, late Shri Janki Dass and that three other meters bearing Nos. ALT-3, ALT-6 and ALT-7 were also installed in the name of his late father Janki Dass and that money due in respect of those other three connections, had not been paid, despite repeated demands and, therefore, the arrears due in respect of those three connections had been added to the connection claimed by the respondent, to be installed in his building, because this connection also happens to be in the name of the same person, i.e. Janki Dass, in whose name three other connections stand.
4. Respondent filed an affidavit claiming that his father Janki Dass had partitioned his property, amongst his legal heirs and in that partition, the building in which meter No. AM-1000083 is installed, fell to his share while the property for which the other three connections are sanctioned, fell to the shares of his co-heirs and hence, he had nothing to do with the power consumed by his co-heirs against the aforesaid three meters No. ALT-03, ALT-06 and ALT-07.
5. Learned District Forum has believed the respondent's version and allowed the complaint with the directions, as aforesaid, to the appellant.
6. Appellant has challenged the order of the Learned District Forum by means of the present appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. Respondent nowhere pleaded in the complaint that there had been any partition amongst him and his co-heirs and the building in question, fell to his share. Therefore, the learned District Forum, ought not to have relied upon the affidavit filed by the appellant claiming that the premises in which the meter is installed, fell to his share, in a partition carried out by his late father during his life time.
8. The fact remains that the meter which the respondent claims to be installed in hi
