ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 18.10.2006 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT, Chandigarh allowing appeal against the order dated 8.3.2006 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint.
2. In nutshell, facts leading to the filing of this revision are these. Petitioner/complainant is having account No. 508/MA23/033400X. In the bill dated 17.7.2005 for the period from 27.4.2005 to 27.6.2006, an amount of Rs. 3,60,397 was included towards the arrears in addition to Rs. 1,648 for the current consumption of electricity. On tendering amount of Rs. 1,648 only the respondent/opposite parties refused to accept it. Petitioner, therefore, filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the respondent. It was alleged that Chandigarh Administration had issued notification dated 18.4.2002 for providing single point delivery connection to leading persons rendering services to the residents of colonies/slum dwellers/unauthorised colonies/residents outside Lai Dora villages. Pursuant to that notification the Electricity Department called tender No. O.P./2/19/2002-03 for providing electricity connection to the residents of Pocket No. 4, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran. Sat Pal Singh Rana was conveyed acceptance of the tender through the letter dated 2.5.2003 by the Executive Engineer. Agreement dated 13.6.2003 was executed. Petitioner and Prem Vashisht stood sureties for Sat Pal Singh Rana for due payment of electricity bills. It was alleged that Sat Pal Singh Rana failed to pay arrears of Rs. 7,00,074 and supply of electricity was, therefore, disconnected on 1.12.2004. This amount was equally divided and half of it was transferred in the said account of the petitioner. It was asserted that petitioner is bound to pay the amount as per the bond executed by him.
3. Submission advanced by Mr. A.K. Jaiswal for petitioner is that it was Chandigarh Vidyut Bulk Supply Company Pvt. Ltd. which through Satpal Singh Rana had applied for electricity connection and was sanctioned load. In terms of surety bond (copy at page 53) the petitioner is not liable to pay the arrears of electricity due from Chandigarh Vidyut Bulk Supply Company Pvt. Ltd. and the order passed by State Commission is, thus, bad in law. Execution by the petitioner of the said surety bond has not been denied by Mr. Jaiswal. Omitting immaterial portion this bond reads thus:
We, the following persons whose electricity account Nos. are given stand surety against electricity and other charges if is not cleared by Mr. Sat Pal Singh Rana, Chandigarh and we jointly or severally to undertake to pay the outstanding dues of above named consumer if remain unpaid by him and we authorize the Electricity Department to debit such amount in our electricity bill.
4. Order under challenge notices that it was Satpal Singh Rana to whom acceptance of tender was sent by Executive Engineer, Division No. 2 by the letter dated 2.5.2003, In the ledger register of Electricity Department perused by the State Commission, the name of consumer mentioned was Satpal Singh Rana. In the affidavit dated 9.10.2005, the SDO also averred that Sat Pal Singh Rana was the consumer of Electricity Department. Order further notices that Sat Pal Singh Rana was not having any other electricity connection in his name. On these facts and the said surety bond, submission referred to above advanced on behalf of petitioner is repelled being without any merit. State Commission had rightly dismissed the complaint holding the petitioner liable to pay the arrears of Rs. 3,60,397 being half of the amount due from Sat Pal Singh Rana. Dismissed.