Consumer protection law
MUKUL SHARMA
(Querist) 18 August 2011
This query is : Resolved
Electricity connection was in name of mr.X.
After death of X,his legal heir did not make any application for transfer of name.Electric bills are issued by electricity department in name of X and deposited by his wife from few years.Can she file complaint in consumer law board for any technical fault in bill.can she be covered in section12 of C.P.Act.Please give any citation immediately.
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 18 August 2011
Yes she is covered under sec 12 of the C.P. Act because she is a beneficiary. Non changing of name doesn't make difference.
Dr Anil Kumar Singh
(Expert) 18 August 2011
I agree with the expert , she can exercise all remedies available to a consumer
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 18 August 2011
I too agree with experts ,she is actual and factual consumer by consuming and paying for
services rendered to the connection installed
not simply because of being widow of consumer in whose name the connection is but due to the fact that she occupies the house in which connection is installed.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 18 August 2011
Not changing the name is only a procedural delay.
She can go for a consumer case for deficiency of service.
K.S.Srinivas
(Expert) 18 August 2011
I agree with Mr.Prabhakar Singh.
Advocate Bhartesh goyal
(Expert) 18 August 2011
It's hardly matter that electric connection is still in the name of her deceased husband,she is beneficiary and entitled all the services which her late husband entitled from the electricity board so she is consumer and can file complaint against electicity board for deficiency in their services.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 18 August 2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
QUORUM
President : Shri Sanjay Garg
Member : S. Tarlok Singh
C.C. No.122 of 2009
Date of Institution: 9.3.2009
Date of Decision: 29.7.2009
Sachin Kumar son of Surinder Kumar, resident of House No.223, Bazar No.3, Ferozepur Cantt.
........ Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, Patiala.
2. Sub Divisional Officer (Operation), Sub Division Cantt-II, P.S.E.B., Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate
ORDER
SANJAY GARG, PRESIDENT:-
As per averments, the brief facts of the complaint are that an
electricity connection bearing account No.KN32/223L has been installed at the residence of the complainant in the name of his deceased father Surinder Kumar. After the death of Surinder Kumar, the complainant, being his son
C.C. No.122 of 2009 \\2//
and legal heir, has been using the electricity from the said electricity connection and has been regularly making the payment of bills of electricity. The complainant has received a bill for the period from 21.6.2008 to 11.8.2008 for Rs.45,120/- against the consumption of 343 units only. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 and enquired about the matter, who informed the complainant that in the said bill, Rs.43,506/- have been added as penalty on account of theft of electricity. The complainant apprised opposite party No.2 that neither his connection has ever been checked nor the complainant has ever committed any theft of electricity, but to no effect. Thereafter, the opposite parties have started issuing the bills on average basis , which are too excessive than the actual consumption of the complainant. Thereafter, the officials of the opposite parties also tried to disconnect the connection of the complainant and insisted that either the complainant should pay the amount of the bills so charged or give them a cheque and the complainant per force gave them a cheque of Rs.20,000/-, but the said cheque was dishonoured, as the sufficient amount was not lying in the account. The complainant is ready to pay the bills as per actual consumption. The complainant has further alleged that the demand on account of theft of electricity and thereafter charging all the bills on average basis is wrong and illegal and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. With these averments, the complainant has sought a direction against the opposite parties to correct the disputed bills and charge the complainant as per actual consumption, further to pay a sum
C.C. No.122 of 2009 \\3//
of Rs.20,000/- as damages for causing mental agony, pain and harassment, Rs.2200/- as counsel fee and Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written reply to the complaint pleading therein that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties, as the connection in question has been installed in the name of Surinder Kumar, deceased father of the complainant. On merits, it has been pleaded that on 25.6.2008, the connection in question was checked by the checking party of the P.S.E.B., headed by the AE (D/S) of P.S.E.B. Circle Ferozepur alongwith Meter Inspector and others and during the said checking, both the M.E. seals of the meter and as well as the body of the meter were found tampered and it was found to be a case of theft of energy. So vide memo No.2164 dated 14.7.2008, provisional notice of assessment was issued to the complainant, whereby, the complainant was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.43,506/- on account of theft of energy, but the complainant has neither deposited the said amount nor has filed any objection against the provisional assessment order and as such the amount in question has rightly been added in the bills of the complainant. The complainant has not deposited the bill in question and as such is in arrears of the bill amount and as such the present complaint is false and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Parties have led evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
C.C. No.122 of 2009 \\4//
5. So far as the objection of the opposite parties regarding the maintainability of the complaint by the complainant is concerned, we do not see any merits in it. The connection was running in the name of Surinder Kumar, father of the complainant. Since the said Surinder Kumar has died, so the complainant, being his legal heir, falls in the definition of consumer, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be maintained by the legal heir of a deceased consumer and in the definition of ‘Consumer’ under Section 2 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, in case of death of the consumer, his legal heir or representative falls in the definition of consumer. Even otherwise, as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the beneficiary of services other than the person, who actually avails services for consideration, is also included in the definition of consumer. Even otherwise, the original consumer has died. The learned counsel for the opposite parties could not explain as to how they would recover the amount imposed on account of penalty for theft of electricity from a dead person and how is it possible that a person, who is now no more in this world, can commit theft of electricity. The facts itself speak that it was the complainant, who was using the electricity and paying the bills, which was never objected to by the opposite parties. Moreover, when the complainant has himself stepped into to own the liability, if any, on behalf of his father against the connection in question, then in that event, he is also entitled to contest the demand, if any, raised by the opposite parties, if he thinks that the same is
C.C. No.122 of 2009 \\5//
not genuinely payable. In these circumstances, we hold that Sachin Kumar son of Surinder Kumar is a consumer of the opposite parties.
6. During the course of arguments, Shri Phuman Singh, S.D.O. of the P.S.E.B. submitted that after the checking in question, the meter was packed and sealed and those seals also bear the signatures of the complainant and the meter is lying with the P.S.E.B. in “as in found condition”. The same can be checked from the M.E. Laboratory to ascertain the fact whether the seals and body of the meter have been tampered by the consumer or not. Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant, readily consented to it and vide order dated 24.7.2009, the opposite parties were directed to produce the meter in question before this Forum to check whether the meter is properly packed and sealed so that it may be further sent to M.E. Laboratory, The said meter has been produced before this Forum. A perusal of the packet/box containing the meter shows that neither the same has been properly packed nor sealed. The version of Shri Phuman Singh, S.D.O. of the P.S.E.B. that the meter has been kept in “as in found condition”, proves to be wrong. There is no justification for further sending the same to the M.E. Laboratory, as the same was not kept by the opposite parties in “as in found condition”.
7. It has been settled time and again that when there is suspicion that the seals or body of the meter have been tampered, then officials of the opposite parties should remove the meter and it should be packed and sealed in the presence of the consumer and his signatures should be obtained on the
C.C. No.122 of 2009 \\6//
seals and it be further sent to the M.E. Laboratory for checking. Even the checking in the M.E. Laboratory should be done in the presence of the consumer. But in this case, nothing like that, as mentioned above, has been done. Even a perusal of the checking report shows that the meter reading on 25.6.2008 i.e. on the date of checking was 2336 units, whereas, as per bill dated 9.9.2008, the meter reading on 11.8.2008 was 2333 units i.e. three units less even after two months after the date of checking on 25.6.2008. So even otherwise, the checking is full of flaws and cannot be relied upon.
8. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the demand raised on account of theft of electricity is set aside. The opposite parties are further directed to charge the complainant as per his actual consumption and if the actual consumption is not available, then on the basis of consumption for the same period of the previous year. A new meter be installed in the premises of the complainant and the account of the complainant be overhauled on the basis of consumption for the same period in the proceeding year as per Regulation No.21.4 (g) (ii) of the regulations framed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission. The opposite parties would issue the bills to the complainant on the basis of his actual consumption or as noted above, without levying any late payment/non-payment penalty/charges and the complainant would deposit the same within fifteen days after the receipt of the bill in question. The opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.
C.C. No.122 of 2009 \\7//
The amount, if any, deposited by the complainant against the demand in question be refunded to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
29.7.2009
(Sanjay Garg)
President
(Tarlok Singh)
Member
MUKUL SHARMA
(Querist) 19 August 2011
Thanks for quick replies.Please give any citation of National Consumer Dispute Resolution Forum judgement,immediately.
MUKUL SHARMA
(Querist) 19 August 2011
District consumer forum is denying to take the matter.
