Punjab

Hoshiarpur

CC/14/82

Balwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asistant Excutive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. R P Thind

30 Jul 2014

ORDER

                          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOSHIARPUR
                           (3RD FLOOR,  DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HOSHIARPUR)

                                                                                                     C.C.No.  82/16.04.2014
                                                                                                     Decided on:30.07.2014

Balwinder Singh aged 50 years, S/o.Shangara Singh S/o.Variam Singh R/o.VPO Khanpur Tehsil Mukerian Distt. Hoshiarpur.         Complainant 

                                                                       vs.

1.Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Sub-Divisional Officer VPO Mukerian Tehsil Mukerian Distt. Hoshiarpur.
2.S.D.O  Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. office at VPO Mukerian Tehsil Mukerian Distt. Hoshiarpur.
3.Sh.Sarwan Singh, J.E., P.S.P.C.L. , Village Khanpur Area Tehsil Mukerian Distt. Hoshiarpur.
4.Sh.Raj Kumar Lineman PSPCL , Village Khanpur Area Tehsil Mukerian Distt. Hoshiarpur.
5.Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman/Chief Engineer the Mall, Patiala.                                                      Opposite parties

                                    

                                    Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:    Sh. Ashok Kumar,President.
                Mrs.Vandna Choudhary, Member.
                Mrs. Sushma Handoo,Member. 

Present:      Sh.R.P.Thind, counsel for the complainant.
                  Sh.B.S.Chaudhary, counsel for the OP.1,2 & 5
                  OPs No.3 & 4 Exparte. 

ORDER 
PER ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

1.          The complainant has filed the present complaint  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman and others (hereinafter referred to as OP No.1,OP.No.2, OP No.3, OP.No.4 & OP.No.5 respectively, for short) praying that high level inquiry in the matter be conducted and the dispute be settled and the excess amount of the impugned bill be deleted and the OPs be restrained from disconnecting the electric supply to the residential house of the complainant besides  burdening it with damages and costs of litigation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-.
2.         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he got installed domestic  connection A/c.No.H66MA820199Y with meter no. 501324 in year 2010 inside his house and then the regular meter connection bill was Rs.403, Rs.900/-, Rs.680/- . After some time the electric meter was installed outside the house of the complainant on 18.12.2012 and regular electric meter connection bill remained about Rs.715/-, Rs.1110/-, Rs.590/-, Rs.588/-, Rs.610/- etc. Thereafter, the regular domestic electric connection bill amount was Rs.2210/- dt.19.8.2013 Rs.730/-  20.4.2013, Rs.751 Dt.16.12.2013, Rs.751/- dt.2.12.2013, Rs.730/- dt.6.5.2013. The complainant paid all the bills regularly. The aforesaid meter is in the name of  Shangara Singh, father of the complainant who has died and now complainant is  using the said  connection and is beneficiary of the said connection. It is further averred that complainant was shocked to receive bill Dt. 1.4.2014 amounting Rs.78,030/- . It is further averred that he wrote an application to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub-divisional office, Mukerian  and during this period the concerned officials saw the record and noted that the alleged meter  pertains to some Roshan Lal of village Sherpur, Tehsil Mukerian Distt. Hoshiarpur. The complainant is apprehending that the OP has got installed the said defective meter in connivance with  above said  Roshan Lal which is quite illegal and against natural justice. Complainant time and again approached OPs  to do the needful but OPs flatly refused to accede to his requests. Now the OP has threatened disconnection in case of non payment of the impugned bill amount. Hence this complaint. 
3.        On notice, OPs No.1,2 & 5 filed  joint contested written statement  taking routine preliminary objections including the one that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as  he is not the consumer of the OP. On merits, it is alleged that bill  dated 1.4.2014 of Rs.78,030/- was issued to the consumer by the OP.  It is admitted that the meter of the consumer was  removed from inside the house and it was installed outside the house of the consumer as per the policy of the PSPCL. It is further alleged that  the bill issued is for the consumption of 11046 units which was recorded by the  concerned official of the OPs. However,  in case the complainant  had any apprehension regarding the defective meter, he should have challenged the same by depositing the challenging fee with the office of PSPCL, Sub Division Mukerian.   It is further replied  that the bill dated 1.4.2014  for Rs.78030/- is legal and valid in all respect as the same is based on actual consumption. So, complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
4.         OP No.3 and 4 were served through registered notices but none had turned up on their behalf. So, they were proceeded against ex parte on 19.5.2014.
5.         All the parties wanted to lead evidence  to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C1 and  electricity bills & receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C14, copy of Aadhar card Mark Ex.C15, application Mark C16, affidavit of Kirpal Singh Ex.C17 and closed the evidence.
6.         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Harsh Sharma Ex.OP1 and documents Mark OP2  and Mark OP3  and closed the evidence. 
7.         We have heard  learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.
8.         Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant is beneficiary of electric connection released in the name of his father, Shangara Singh. Therefore, he is the consumer of OP.  He has further argued that even after shifting of electric meter outside his house,  his consumption thereunder remained within the range of 600 to 2200 units. However, OP has sent impugned bill dated 1.4.2014  for Rs.78,030/-. On approaching the concerned official of OP with the complaint, it came to light that the meter which has been installed outside the house of the complainant pertains to some Roshan Lal of village Sherpur, Tehsil Mukerian Distt Hoshiarpur. However, in spite of several visit of the complainant to OP for redressal of his grievance. it has failed to bear any fruitful result. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to relief claimed.  
9.         Learned counsel for the OP has however repelled the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant on the grounds  that  complainant has got no locus standi as he is not consumer of OP.  He has further argued that the impugned bill was sent to the consumer for consumption of 11046 units which was recorded by concerned official of PSPCL, Sub Division Mukerian. In case the complainant had any apprehension  that consumption of units as aforesaid is due to any defect in the meter, he should have challenged it on deposit of requisite fee. Since, the impugned bill was for actual consumption the same is legal and valid.  There is no deficiency in service on the  part of OP.  Complaint filed by the complainant deserves dismissal. 
10.         We have anxiously considered  the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record.
11.         A perusal of application Mark C-16 would show that the same was filed by Shangara Singh before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Divisional Office, Mukerian. This application is undated. However, from the marking thereof by the concerned officer of the OP it can be made out that the said application was filed somewhere in the month of December,2013.  Report of office of OP on that application is dated as 7.1.2014 and the present complaint was filed on 15.04.2014. Therefore, it can be  presumed that Shangara Singh, father of the complainant breathed his last somewhere in January/February,2014. Impugned bill is dated 1.4.2014. In this way, not much time has passed between death of Shangara Singh, original consumer and filing of the present complaint. By that time it cannot be expected that the complainant would  get the connection transferred in his name. So, in our considered opinion the present complaint filed by Balwinder singh son of Shangara Singh, original connection holder is  well maintainable he being beneficiary and therefore consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. 
12.         Complainant has not produced or proved on record any material in support of the fact that  electric meter shifted from the house to outside his premises is not the same meter which originally stood installed in the house.  Account Number of said electric meter can well be matched with the account number mentioned in the bills issued prior to the shifting of the meter outside. Therefore, the allegation that electric meter installed outside the house of the complainant pertains to some Roshan Lal is wrong and unfounded.
13.          There is no denial of the fact that the complainant has been receiving bills in the year 2010, 2011 & 2012 for less amount as is clear from bills and receipts Ex. C-3 to Ex.C-14.  However,  the report  of the office of OP  at the  bottom of the application Mark C-6 filed by Shangara Singh , which has already been referred heretofore, conveys that complainant is using more load than the one sanctioned  under the account number in question.  In such a situation the impugned bill issued on the basis of the actual  and factual consumption of the electric meter installed at the premises of the complaint cannot said to be illegal and unlawful.  In our considered opinion, faced with the  given situation complainant would have  approached the OP and challenged the meter itself  by depositing requisite meter challenging fee instead of having recourse to this forum for the rederessal of his grievances.   As a sequel to our above discussion, no deficiency of service on the part of OP is either made out or proved on record by the complainant. Therefore, the complaint filed by him deserves dismissal.
14.          In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by complainant is found to be meritless and as such the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 
Announced. 
    30.7.2014
           (Mrs.Vandna Choudhary)       (Mrs. Sushma Handoo)      (Ashok Kumar )
                            Member                               Member                President
SS