Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member and Piare Lal Garg, Member
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Appellant
Versus
SUKHMINDER SINGH - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1440 of 2006
Decided on : 11-07-2011
Mr. J.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Munish Goel, Advocate, for the Respondent
The consumer is responsible for paying the actual consumption charges, and the service provider is not obligated to intervene in disputes between the consumer and third parties.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Electricity Connection - Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service by the appellant for not disconnecting the electric connection and allowing arrears to accumulate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was not liable for the accumulated arrears as the respondent, as the consumer, was responsible for paying the actual consumption charges, and the appellant had no obligation to intervene in the dispute between the respondent and his tenant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was liable for the accumulated arrears and if there was a deficiency in service on their part.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was not at fault for the accumulated arrears and that the respondent, as the consumer, was responsible for paying the actual consumption charges.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint filed by the respondent was dismissed.
ORDER
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member - Punjab State Electricity Board, appellant (in short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 19.9.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Sukhminder Singh, respondent/complainant (hereinafter called, "the respondent") filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), pleading that an electric connection bearing account No. CH-240447 was installed in the name of the respondent in House No. HIG-818, Phase-2, Mohali. The said house was given on rent to one Tejpal Singh Anand since 5.3.2001, but he did not make the payment of rent to the respondent and ultimately, a suit for possession was filed seeking ejectment of the said tenant which was decreed ex parte on 18.09.2004.
3. When the tenant came to know that he has to vacate the house, he started misusing the electricity and stopped the payment of electricity bills. An amount of about Rs. 10,000 towards electricity bill became due during January, 2004 and in this bill, the pending payment of the previous bill was also included which shows that he stopped the payment of the bill from November, 2003 and the PSEB authorities failed to disconnect the connection and, ultimately, the electric connection was disconnected on 5.4.2005 vide FR No. 9180. The appellant and its employees did not disconnect the connection in connivance with the tenant for a period of one and a half years and he was permitted to use the electricity without making any payment.
4. SDO, P.S.E.B., Mohali, opposite party No. 3 (not made party in appeal) issued a bill for Rs. 44,891 and in this bill, previous balance was shown as Rs. 46,266 and the consumption of 1369 units was shown which was illegal. The said tenant vacated the house on 15.6.2005 and the bill was issued in the month of July, 2005. The respondent has not used the electricity and is not liable to pay the said amount. The negligence on the part of the appellant for not issuing the bill for about one and a half years clearly establishes the deficiency in service.
5. To avoid permanent disconnection of the electric connection, the respondent deposited the amount of Rs. 44,891 under protest regarding which, an application was given on 13.1.2006 to Superintending Engineer, PSEB, opposite party No. 2 (not made party in appeal). The respondent before making the payment, made many representations dated 25.7.2005, 29.8.2005, 22.9.2005 and also wrote a letter dated 29.7.2005. For no fault of the respondent, he has been burdened with the amount of the bill in question and the recovery of the bill by showing the previous balance is illegal and is in violation of the rules framed by the P.S.E.B. The respondent suffered harassment and he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000 and prayed that the appellant be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 44,891 along with interest and pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation for harassment and Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objection was taken that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to the dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. On merits, installation of the electric connection bearing account No. CH-240447 was admitted. It was further pleaded that no rent note was ever brought to the notice of the appellant nor any intimation regarding letting out the property to the tenant was given and in the civil litigation, the appellant was not a party. It was pleaded that bill for the month of November, 2003 for Rs. 7597 was issued to the respondent which was not deposited and again in January, 2004, bill for Rs. 9,175 was issued in which, previous amount was included. It was further pleaded that the appellant has installed an automatic bill payment machine and the respondent in order to clear the payment for the
