PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.