PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs KULDIP SINGH

IT is an appeal against the order dated 4.2.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that originally Arjun Singh, father of the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had obtained a tubewell connection of 15 HP from the appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) and got installed meter in the year 1969-70 in his property situated in village Dharar. Connection was bearing Account No. E-522/AP for agriculture purpose. All the bills issued by the opposite party were paid regularly. His father died on 15.4.1987 and after his death, the complainant got the connection transferred in his name. Pass-book was issued to the complainant. Account No. 08/855 was allotted to him. The complainant paid the bills regularly till 1997 when the opposite party started distributing electricity energy for tubewells in the State free of cost. In March, 2002, some officials of the opposite party came at the premises of the complainant and told him that a sum of Rs. 16,140/- was outstanding against electric connection relating to the period from 3/95 to 2/97 and another amount of Rs. 1,614/- was also payable as the outstanding amount on account of surcharge. In order to avoid disconnection, the complainant deposited Rs. 8,000/- with the opposite party on 26.3.2002 without admitting his liability and under protest. It is stated in the complaint that the demand raised by the opposite party was illegal and the complainant was not liable to pay the amount claimed. Complainant had made representation to the opposite party on 22.3.2002 but to no avail. The opposite party is proclaiming that another sum Rs. 7,500/- was outstanding on account of penalty and they have threatened to recover that amount. The action of the opposite party, according to the complainant, was illegal and amounted to deficiency in service. A prayer was made in complaint that the opposite party be directed to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs. 16,140/- plus Rs. 1,614/- and Rs. 7,500/-; and opposite party be also directed to refund the amount of Rs. 8,000/- with interest and compensation. Opposite party filed reply wherein the electric connection in the name of the complainant after the death of his father was not specifically denied. It was pleaded in the reply that the electric supply was made free of costs to the consumers of the agriculture connections in the month of February, 1997. Prior to that the agriculture consumers were charged by the opposite party at the flat rate per Horse Power i.e. on the basis of load. Transfer of connection in the name of the father to the complainant is not disputed. It is then stated in the reply that during the course of change it came to the notice of the opposite party that sanctioned load of the complainant was 15 HP whereas he is charged for 3 HP. The accounts of the complainant were overhauled at the behest of the Audit Department of the opposite party and the complainant was found liable to pay Rs. 17,754/-. The complainant had paid the amount without protest. It was ultimately stated that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the complaint was sought to be dismissed. Parties produced their respective evidence.

After hearing the Counsels for the parties and after having gone through the record the District Forum allowed the complaint. The relevant portion of the order of the District Forum is reproduced hereunder : "The complainant was granted connection for running load of 15 HP for agriculture purposes. As per rules the consumers were charged at flat rate according to the connected load. Contention of the opposite party is that by clerical error the charges from the complainant were realised on connected load of 3 HP. The error came to the notice when the accounts were audited. The audit party has given the report and calculated the amount payable by the complainant for the period from 3/95 to 297 at Rs. 16,140/-. Surcharge of Rs. 1,640/- has also been added. Learned Counsel for the complainant has cited before us the decision of Madras High Court in case S.A. Ahamed v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 112, and has argued that the opposite party has no right to recover the amount, if at all due, for the period of more than 3 years. Ratio of that case is applicable to the present case. The complainant paid the charges according to the bills issued to him. He cannot be penalised for any deliberate or negligent act of the concerned official of the opposite party. Claim of the opposite party covering the period from 3/95 to 2/97 is barred by time. It is not a case where any arrears are outstanding against the complainant. On the other hand, it is a case where the complainant is being asked to pay the penalty for default of the official of the opposite party. Opposite party issued bills to the complainant and the bills were duly paid by him. No notice was given to the complainant by the audit party before giving the report and the report is one-sided. We are, thus of the opinion that the opposite party has no lawful right to recover the amount of Rs. 16,140/- and Rs. 1,640/- from the complainant. The complainant paid the amount only under threat of disconnection. Hence, he is entitled to refund of the amount. The point is decided accordingly."

WE do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. District Forum had relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in case S.A. Ahamed v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2002 (2) Civil Court Cases 112, while deciding matter in issue and rightly held so. Complainant had paid the charges according to bills issued to him. He cannot be penalised for any negligent act of the concerned official of the opposite party. Claim of the opposite party, covering the period from 3/95 to 2/97 was barred by time. District Forum has rightly held that it is not a case where any arrears were outstanding against the complainant. On the other hand, it was a case where the complainant was being asked to pay the penalty for default of the officials of the opposite party. The opposite party had been issuing the bills to the complainant and the bills were duly paid by him. No notice was given to the complainant by the audit party before giving the report. The report certainly was one-sided. WE are not inclined to interfere in the order of the District Forum. This appeal is, thus, dismissed as meritless. Appeal dismissed.