PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Ram Parkash

IT is an appeal against the order dated 18.4.2002 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'').

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called the "complainant") was running tea shop in the premises of which he was a tenant. When the shop was on rent with him, he got electric connection installed in the shop. Later on, he had vacated the shop and the same was purchased by one Gagandeep Sagar from the previous owner and the possession of the electric connection was taken by said Gagan Deep Sagar. It is mentioned in the complaint that Gagandeep Sagar had been making payment of the bills. The respondent/opposite party (hereinafter called the "opposite party") had issued a bill for Rs. 34,974/- payable on 16.7.2001. The complainant approached Gagandeep Sagar and informed him that the officials of the Municipal Corporation had demolished the shop on 31.3.2001 and the Malba of the shop was taken away. He had approached the concerned officials but nothing was done by them. The disputed demand, according to the complainant, was illegal, arbitrary and against the rules. No notice was given before raising the demand. A prayer was made in the complaint that the demand be quashed and opposite party be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 2,500/- on account of litigation charges. The opposite party in its reply took the preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable and there was no deficiency in service on its part. It was then stated in the reply that the complainant did not pay the sum of Rs. 2,513/- against the bill issued in March, 2001. Thereafter, the premises were found locked and computer started making the bills on average basis of 3926 units and total amount of Rs. 34,974/- related to the regular consumption charges. The consumer did not make the payment since March, 2001. It was denied that the consumer got the shop constructed from Bakhshish Singh in 1990 or that the shop was vacated by the complainant or was purchased by Gagandeep Sagar and that its possession was taken by Gagandeep Sagar. Payment of the bill by Gagandeep Sagar was also denied. The bills, according to the opposite party, were rightly issued and there was no deficiency in service. Ultimately, prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

After hearing the representative of the complainant and the Counsel for the opposite party, the District Forum allowed the complaint with the following directions: "Keeping in view the circumstances of the case the opposite party is directed to modify the disputed bill. Accordingly, the complainant is directed to get the meter back from the Municipal Authorities and then to hand over the same to the opposite party for preparing the bill on the basis of actual consumption and if for some reasons the complainant is unable to get back the meter, then he will collect the evidence from the office of the Corporation regarding the actual date of demolition of the premises and submit the same to the opposite party. In case any of the said acts is done by the complainant within the period of one month, the opposite party shall be entitled to raise the demand on average basis upto the date of demolition. Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to modify the disputed demand and raise the same as per meter reading if the meter is handed over to the opposite party or upto the date of demolition on average basis and if no record is produced regarding the demolition, then upto the date of intimation on average basis. The opposite party shall comply within one month after the production of the meter or record regarding the demolition and if nothing is done, then within two months from the date of this order on average basis. Copy of the order be sent to the parties."

Hence this appeal.

WE have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance. WE do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The District Forum had rightly issued the direction to the opposite party to modify the disputed bill. Issuance of the disputed bill and the complainant being a consumer of the opposite party is not denied before us. As per the complainant, the property was demolished by the Municipal Corporation on 31.3.2001 and as such the disputed bill was illegal. The complainant had produced letter dated 10.9.2001 (Ex. C-1) according to which he gave intimation to the opposite party regarding the premises having been demolished. In the said letter it is mentioned that the shop had been demolished by the Commissioner, Municipal Cooperation, Ludhiana, on 31.3.2001. However, no evidence was produced that the shop was actually demolish hed on 31.3.2001. It is no body''s case that the meter was dead and it was not running. The opposite party had placed reliance on Ex. R-1. According to this document, the reading was taken on 12.2.2001 and thereafter no reading was taken. The opposite party stated that the disputed bill was prepared on average basis for 2926 units. If the premises were locked at the time of one visit, the reading could have been taken later on. It is, thus, obvious that the contention of the complainant is correct that the premises were demolished in March, 2001. The complainant had stated that the meter was taken away by the Municipal authorities. In these circumstances, we do not find any defect in the order of the District Forum while issuing the direction, as reproduced above, to the opposite party. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs which are quantified as Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed.