SDO told to compensate complainant

Chandigarh, December 23
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I has directed SDO, sub-division office, electricity department, Sector 40-B, to pay Rs 5,000 as litigation charges to a resident of Maloya village near Chandigarh.

The forum comprising president PD Goel and members Rajinder Singh Gill and Madanjit Kaur Sahota also quashed the sundry charges raised in the bills from the month of October, 2010, to June, 2011, as the respondents failed to prove any evidence.

The complainant, Lakhmir Singh, submitted that in the month of September, 2010, the said tubewell did not work due to some defect and he installed a new tubewell about 60m away from the old one, and thereafter, requested the opposite party to transfer the connection on October 1, 2010, so that he could use the new tubewell. However, on October 7, he received a provisional assessment letter with regard to illegal demand of Rs 42,195 on account of theft of energy. The opposite party again sent bill dated November 9, 2010, in which the amount of Rs 42,602 was added as sundry charges. He received another bill dated December 10, 2010, for Rs 47,148.

The counsel for the opposite party averred that the electricity connection of the complainant was checked on September 30, 2010, and the complainant was found using “kundi connection”. Accordingly an amount of Rs 42,195 was charged on account of average for the period April 30, 2009, to September 30, 2010, at the rate of Rs 882 per unit, (per month) at domestic rate as the tubewell connection was being used for cattle shed as well as for service station. The complainant was advised to apply on proper A & A Form, along with proof of ownership, and also to pay the pending electricity bills for shifting the meter. However, he shifted the meter without any approval from the opposite party. It was further averred that the amount of Rs 49,187 was still outstanding, which the complainant had not paid.

The forum further observed that the report given by the checking officer had not been supported by any affidavit. “The report loses its evidential value and is not sufficient to prove that the complainant committed any theft.”

Show-cause notice to former judge

Panchkula, December 23
Taking suo motu notice of the news report published in these columns on Friday, the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has issued a show-cause notice to Dr Mewa Singh, an advocate practising in the Panchkula court here.

Dr Mewa Singh, a former judge, practising in the local court, had been using the nameplate of a “judge” on a car being used by him to visit the court. He was placed under suspension on September 12, 2007, when he was posted as the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Narnaul and later he retired in public interest in January this year.

The notice issued to the advocate stated that it was a violation of the Rule 36 of Bar Council of India Rules. Why the proceedings of professional misconduct be not initiated against him, asked the notice while directing him to be present before the chairman of bar council on January 3, 2011, for his comments. Failing this, his right of practice would remain suspended till further orders, said the notice.

Non-signatory can’t be made accused: HC

Chandigarh, December 23
In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a bounced cheque complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable against a person, “who has neither issued the cheque nor the same has been issued from his account.”

Taking up a petition filed by Navjot Kaur against INSCOL, Justice Alok Singh of the High Court asserted: “The short question involved in the present case is as to whether a person, who is neither a signatory of the cheque, nor has issued cheque, can be made accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?.

“No complaint under Section 138 is maintainable against the person who has neither issued the cheque nor the same was issued from her account.”

INSCOL had earlier filed a complaint against Avtar Singh and his daughter Navjot Kaur. The complainant alleged that Navjot Kaur had secured admission to foreign nursing course; and her father issued an account payee cheque dated September 16, 2007, for Rs 1,25,000.

On the presentation, the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, after which a complaint was filed before a Magistrate on November 27, 2007.

After hearing the arguments and going through the documents, Justice Alok Singh ruled: “From the perusal of Section 138, I have no hesitation to hold that complaint under Section 138 can only be filed against the person, who has drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him with the banker for payment of any amount of money. 

FOUL CONTENT

Court asks networking sites to face trial

New Delhi, December 23
In yet another blow to 21 social networking sites, including Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and YouTube, a Delhi court today issued summons to them for facing trial for allegedly webcasting objectionable contents.
Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Sudesh Kumar took cognisance on a private criminal complaint and has directed the Centre for taking “immediate appropriate steps” and also file a report in the court by January 13.
The court’s order came three days after another court in a civil case had restrained these sites, including Facebook, Google and YouTube from webcasting any “anti-religious” or “anti-social” content promoting hatred or communal disharmony.
The magistrate has summoned the accused companies to face trial for allegedly committing the offence punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.