SDO (OP) HVPN Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR KHULLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 13.11.1998 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal in a Complaint No. 250 of 1998, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant -respondent was partly allowed against the appellant -opposite parties and following directions were given:

(2.) THE facts as can be gathered from the record are that Dr. Pardeep Kumar Khullar in the partnership of Sh. Vinod Kumar and one other partner Sh. Sunil Kumar Bedi had been running a diagnostic centre located in the Urban Estate, 13 Extension, Karnal. The electricity connection was installed in the premises in the name of Shri Vinod Kumar. Later on, Sh. Vinod Kumar and Sh. Sunil Kumar partners left the partnership business and Dr. Pardeep Kumar complainant became the sole proprietor of the firm. However, the electricity connection bearing No. LS -30/0207 F -E, continued to be in the name of Sh. Vinod Kumar. The complainant had been receiving the energy consumption bills. For the period 1.11.1997 to 1.1.1998, the bill for the consumption of 2023 units for the amount of Rs. 14,471 was received by the complainant. According to the complainant this amount included a sum of Rs. 6,498.45 as charges for electricity consumption consumed and Rs. 7,350 as penalty. The grievance of the complainant is that earlier he had been getting the bill for around Rs. 2,000 per two months, whereas the amount claimed in the bill is not only excessive but totally unjustified. Alleging deficiency of service at the part of the appellant, the complainant sought directions against the opposite parties to charge energy consumption bill on average basis. Terming the demand of the bill made, as illegal and arbitrary, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking direction against the appellant, to the opposite parties for correction of the bill in accordance with the previous bills and further restraining the opposite parties not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant.

(3.) THE opposite parties contested the complaint. It was pleaded by them that the premises of the complainant was checked on 9.12.1997 and it was found that against the sanctioned load of 6.0 K.W., the complainant was using total load of 12.190 K.W. The meter reading was also slow. The meter reading was on 4933 while the Meter Reader had taken the readings as 3558 units on 20.11.1997 and because of this factual mistake, the reading in the month of March, 1998 accumulated to 2023 units. It was further stated that for the unauthorised extension load, the complainant was charged Rs. 7,350 in terms of the Sales Circular No. 4 of 1991. A notice bearing Memo No. 8480 dated 15.12.1997 was served upon the complainant, but he failed to file any representation against the demand made and thus they justified the amount of the bill demanded from the complainant. Additionally, it was pleaded that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as the meter in question stands in the name of Sh. Vinod Kumar and not in the name of the complainant and for that reason, he cannot be construed as consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986). Thus, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.