PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs GARJIT KAUR

ALL these appeals, namely, Appeal Nos. 746 to 753 of 2003 are being decided by a single order as according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, questions of law and facts involved in all these appeals is the same. Facts are being taken from Appeal No. 746 of 2003, Punjab State Electricity Board and Another v. Garjit Kaur.

THE sole question, which needs decision in this case is as to whether as per rules of the appellant-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties), the amount outstanding against one connection could be added in the bill of another connection even if the demand related to the same consumer. The respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had challenged the demand of Rs. 20,113/- made by the opposite parties, which according to the complainant, had been illegally added to her account.

District Consumer Disputes redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum) after hearing the Counsels for the parties allowed the complaint. The operative part of the order dated 23.4.2003 of the District Forum reads as under: "It is an admitted fact between the parties that the demand in dispute relates to another connection bearing account No. CF-75/0487 and the same has been added to the account of the complainant. According to the opposite party since the complainant was the beneficiary of the said connection, as such, the amount has been added. As per rules of the opposite party the amount outstanding against one connection cannot be added in the bill of the another connection even if the demand relates to same consumer. In the present case, the demand relates to connection which is in the name of Surya Kiran. A.C. Market Welfare Society. The said amount could not be added to account of the complainant. As such the opposite party is directed to withdraw the disputed demand raised against the account of the complainant and to pay Rs. 500/- as costs of this complaint to the complainant. Compliance of the order be done within one month of the receipt of copy of this order be sent to the parties."

WE adjourn this case in order to enable the learned Counsel for the appellants to show as to whether there was any rule or regulation according to which the amount outstanding against one connection could be added in the bill of another connection even if the demand related to the same consumer. Learned Counsel has not been able to show us any law, which permitted the amount outstanding against one connection that could be added in the bill of another connection if the demand related to the same consumer.

IT is an admitted case of the parties that the demand in dispute related to another connection bearing account No. CF-75/0487 and the same was added to the account of the complainant. The demand made by the opposite parties related to the connection, which was in the name of Surya Kiran A.C. Market Welfare Society. The said amount under the rules of the opposite party itself as has not been denied by the learned Counsel for the appellants could not be added to the account of the complainant. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. All these appeals, namely, Appeal Nos. 746 to 753 of 2003 are, thus, dismissed in limine. IT is, however, ordered that the opposite parties are at liberty to demand and secure the payment with regard to the energy consumed from any other consumer from whom it is due. Appeal dismissed.