P.K. MALHAN vs S.D.O. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS appeal is by the complainant P.K. Malhan challenging order of District Forum, Jalandhar dated January 28, 1997 whereby his complaint was dismissed, which was filed against Punjab State Electricity Board.

THE complainant claimed to be a potential user of electricity. He received electricity bill for Rs. 417/-. THE bill was dated Octobers 5, 1993. THE amount of the bill was paid through cheque, which subsequently bounced. THE electricity was disconnected on December 14, 1993, but subsequently restored on payment of the bill plus reconnection charges Rs. 40/- and penalty Rs. 38/-. THEreafter the complainant approached District Forum alleging that the disconnection was illegal and not on account of his action. He claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. THE stand taken up by the complainant was refuted in the reply submitted. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. After hearing complainant and Counsel for the respondent, we find no merit in this appeal. The first question debated is about the competency of the complainant to file the complaint. On behalf of the Electricity Board it has been argued that the complainant was not a consumer as per records of the Electricity Board. This contention cannot be accepted. The complainant did not claim himself to be owner of the premises where electric connection MT No. 21/1011 has been given. He claims to be a potential user of electricity of that connection as allotted by the opposite party. While reply to the same in the version submitted by the Electricity Board, it was not specifically stated that the complainant was not the potential user of the electricity from the aforesaid connection. It was alleged that the connection was in the name of one Atamjit and according to Condition No. 28 the consumer could not assign or transfer or part with the benefit of his agreement. Consumer Protection Act defines consumer under Section 2(d) as under: "2(d). "consumer" means any person who- (i) Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person;

It is Clause (ii), which is reproduced above is applicable in the present case that is a case of hiring services for consideration. A person who had hired the services is obviously a consumer but in the present case Atamjit has been mentioned as consumer in the written version filed by the Electricity Board. Since complainant is using electricity from that connection, he is beneficiary of that services. Hence he is a consumer as defined.

FURTHER question for consideration is as to whether there was deficiency in rendering service in the matter of effecting disconnection of electricity on account of bouncing of the cheque. It is in this context that the complainant has further argued that before effecting disconnection a seven days'' notice should have been given as required under Section 24 of the Electricity Act. This contention in the facts of the present case cannot be accepted. Reference has been made to the bill issued for Rs. 417/- which provides a notice of seven days for payment in default to suffer disconnection. This fulfils the requirement of Section 24 of the Electricity Act. It has been argued by the complainant/appellant that it was the fault of the Bank in not honouring the cheque and the complainant is not to suffer. There is no merit in this contention. The complainant on receipt of the bill was required to make payment by cash or by cheque. If he chooses to make payment by cheque, he was supposed to give a good cheque, which was to be honoured. For whatsoever reason the Bank dishonoured the cheque, no comment in this litigation is necessary as the complainant may have any cause against the Bank. Suffice it to say that on bouncing of the cheque it cannot be said that the amount of the electricity bill stood paid rather it would amount to non-payment of electricity bill entitling the Electricity Board to disconnect on that account. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merits in the appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. _______________