PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and going through the application for condonation of delay, we find that sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the appeal within time. Consequently, the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

THE misc. application stands disposed of. The delay has been condoned without calling upon the other side for the view we are going to take in the main appeal.

This judgment will dispose of First Appeal No. 1629 of 2005 as well as First Appeal No. 145 of 2006 as the law point involved in both the cases is the same though there may be slight difference of facts. Facts are being taken from First Appeal No. 1629 of 2005 which has been filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board against the judgment of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana while First Appeal No. 145 of 2006 has been filed by the complainant whose complaint has been dismissed by the District Forum, Ferozepur on the ground that the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BRIEF facts of First Appeal No. 1629 of 2005 are that on Hazur Singh had purchased the property where electricity connection bearing Account No. MP 72/1180 had been installed. The electricity connection was transferred in his name. After his death, the said property was inherited by the legal heirs of Hazur Singh. The legal heirs through sale deed dated 2.2.1979 sold the said property, where the electricity connection was installed, to one Sat Pal son of Mr. Charan Dass, father of the complainants. Sat Pal also died in the year 1980. After the death of Sat Pal, all the three complainants, namely, Praveen Kumar Jain, Sudhir Jain and Kulbhushan Jain, were residing in the said property and were consuming the electricity jointly. The officers of the PSEB inspected the premises of the complainants on 1.1.2005 and removed the meter of single phase category having load of 9.91 KWs and a new meter was installed. The removed meter was taken away in loose condition and was not packed and sealed in card-board box as per rules. Even no notice was served upon the complainants for checking the meter in the M.E. Lab, in their presence nor any consent letter was given by the complainants to check the meter in their absence. The complainants received the notice dated 7.1.2005, which was sent in the name of Hazur Singh, in the sum of Rs. 76,029 on the allegation that the meter was running 71% slow. This notice was challenged by the complainants before the District Forum, which had allowed the complaint vide the impugned order on the ground that the meter, after removal, had not been packed as per Rules and no notice was given to the complainants to come present in the M.E. Lab when the meter would be checked. The only argument urged before us was that the complainants cannot be said to be consumers under the Consumer Protection Act. We do not agree with this submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants. Hazur Singh, in whose name the electricity connection was died. After the death of Hazur Singh, the legal heirs of deceased had sold the property to the father of the complainants, namely, Sat Pal. After the death of Sat Pal, the complainants, who were residing in the house, continued using the electricity though the electricity connection remained in the name of Hazur Singh. Since the actual user in the premises were the complainants, they will be beneficiaries of the original person in whose name the electricity connection was existing. They were the persons who were paying the electricity bills though the bills were being issued in the name of a dead person Hazur Singh. If the notice which was issued in the name of dead person Hazur Singh was not challenged by the beneficiaries, i.e. the complainants, the net result would be that on the non-payment of the amount of the demand notice electricity connection would be disconnected. Naturally the beneficiaries, who were the one who will be affected by any order that will be passed by the PSEB, can challenge the impugned demand. Of course, if they want the transfer of the electricity connection in their names, procedure under Rules and Regulations of the PSEB shall have to be followed by both the parties before actually transferring the electricity connection in the name of the legal heirs or anyone of them.

SUBJECT to the observations made above, we find no merit in this appeal (First Appeal No. 1629 of 2005), which is dismissed in limine. So far as Appeal No. 145 of 2006 is concerned, the same stands allowed for the reasons recorded above in First Appeal No. 1629 of 2005, PSEB v. Praveen Kumar and Ors., the order of the District Forum, Ferozepur dated 16.11.2005 is set aside and the complainant is held to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The case is remanded to the District Forum, Ferozepur for deciding it on merits after treating the complainant to be a consumer. Parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on 17.8.2006 to get further orders/directions. Appeal No. 1629/2005 dismissed. Appeal No. 145/2006 allowed.