RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainant. He challenges the order of the District Forum, Ropar dated November 23,1995, whereby his complaint stands dismissed. The parties were, however, left to bear their costs.

(2.) Raghbir Singh-the complainant is a consumer of electricity (domestic connection) at House No.1200, Phase III-B2, Mohali. His wife is stated to be admitted in the hospital. He was unable to deposit the electricity bill in time on that account. Subsequently, on payment of late fee etc. , the electricity was restored. His grouse was that the cashier refused to accept the amount of the bill by cheque unless it was so written. There was also some dispute regarding adjustment of Rs.956/-. The real grouse as stated in para 13 of the complaint appears to be that he went to the counter to deposit the amount of the bill by cheque. There being a long question, his request that cheque should be accepted separately probably was not acceded to. He approached the higher authorities (SDO and Executive Engineer) but with no result. He suffered mental agony for which he claimed compensation to the tune to Rs.5,000/-. He sought a direction to be issued to the opposite party to accept the payment of the bills from consumers by the receipt clerk apart from the cashier. On notice of the complaint, reply was filed in the form of affidavit of J. N. Sachdeva, Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board. After making reference to issue of certain bill and after deposit of the same, the electricity was restored. It was pleaded further that as per rules of the Board, only cashier was authorised to receive the cash on the counter and general instructions were also issued by the Board for making payment through payees cheque. The SDO could not authorise anybody except the cashier to receive the cash on behalf of the bill. In the reply filed on behalf of the Board, preliminary objection was also taken that the complaint was not maintainable and the same was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The District Forum in the impugned order held that the complainant had failed to establish his allegations of any deficiency in service by the Electricity Board. He further held that it was beyond the scope of the Forum to issue the required direction to the Board concerning handling of cash by any official other than the cashier.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that payment of the bills either by cash or by cheque is part of the contract of supplying electricity by the Board and if proper arrangements are not made by the Board for receiving the amount of the bill in cash or by cheque, the same would amount to deficiency in service. This argument has not appealed to us. The Consumer Forums assume jurisdiction, if there is consumer dispute as defined under the Act. In the state of circumstances stated above, the complainant-consumer has hired the services of the Board in the matter of supply of electricity at his premises and thus hiring of course is for consideration as he is supposed to pay for the same on issuing of bills. The payment could be made either in cash or by cheque. Thus, there are two separate things to be understood - (1) hiring of service; and (2) consideration. No dispute is being raised in the present complaint about any deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board in the matter of supply of electricity or in the matter of wrong billing for the same. The matter as to how the amount of the bill is to be received by the Electricity Board is entirely an administrative matter and the consumer (complainant) has not hired the services of the Electricity Board in that context. The duty is cast upon the consumer to pay the electricity bill as stated above either by cash or by cheque.