GURDIAL SINGH vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

IT is an appeal against the order dated 19.2.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter called the District Forum.)

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was having electricity connection installed at his residence since 1978. He had received the bills dated 16.6.2002 and 16.8.2002 for Rs. 965/- and Rs. 886/- respectively on higher tariff rate. He had visited the office of the respondent-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) for correction of the above said bills. The opposite party told him that the inflated rate of tariff had been charged due to two meters installed in the same building. The complainant told the opposite party that his son Manjit Singh was living separately since 1985 and was having separate ration card, but the opposite party has ignored his contention without any reason and had refused to correct the said bills and further had threatened the complainant to disconnect the connection in case of non-payment of the said bills. Due to fear of disconnection, the complainant had deposited the bills on 26.6.2002 and 27.8.2002 respectively under protest. It was further alleged in the complaint that the demand raised through the above said bills was against law and facts and was arbitrary. Ultimately, a direction was sought in the complaint to the opposite party to refund the excess amount charged along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and for payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant. Opposite party filed the reply and contested the complaint on the ground that two meters were installed in one premises and as such opposite party was entitled to get higher rate of tariff as per CC No. 13/2001.

After having gone through the record and after having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had failed to prove that he was residing separately from his son Manjit Singh. Hence this appeal.

WE have gone through the record as well as the order of the District Forum minutely. WE do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The perusal of CC No. 13/2001 shows that more than one connection in the same premises was prohibited and the existing consumer shall have the option, either to club their connections or opt for paying highest slab charges. The plea of the complainant was that he was residing separately from his son, Manjit Singh and had separate electric connection in his name. In support of his plea, the complainant had produced photocopy of ration card (Ex C-2) only. The complainant had neither produced partition deed on the file nor any other reliable evidence, which could prove that he was residing separately from his son. On the other hand, Junior Engineer of the opposite party had submitted report Ex. R-2 wherein he had mentioned that two meters were installed in the same premises and main gate of the house was also one. In these circumstances, the District Forum has rightly held that the complainant had failed to prove by leading any cogent evidence that he was residing separately from his son, Manjit Singh and the opposite party had rightly charged the higher tariff from the complainant on the basis of CC No. 13/2001. In view of our discussions made above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed; however, without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.