Punjab

Moga

CC/15/28

Sukhdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

in person

14 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

Complaint No.28 of 2015 

Instituted On: 04.05.2015 

                                                                                              Decided On: 14.08.2015

 

Sukhdev Singh s/o Rakha Singh r/o Near Shiv Mandir Barnala Road, Nihal Singh Wala, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga.

 

                                                                                      ……..Complainant 

Versus  

 

1.       Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patto Hira Singh, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga.

 

2.       Chief Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, West Zone, Power Colony, opposite Guru Nanak Dev Tharmal Plant, Bathinda.

 

 

               ……..Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

        Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Coram:       Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                     Smt Vinod Bala, Member

          Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:      Sh. Sukhdev Singh complainant in person.

                   Sh.S.K.Dhir, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties.

 

 ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patto Hira Singh, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga and others (herein-after referred to as ‘opposite parties’)- directing them to adjust the amount charged by the opposite parties, through wrong bills and not to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant is the owner of electric connection bearing no.F13NC640676X installed at his premises Near Shiv Mandir, Barnala Road, Mandi Nihal Singh Wala and is paying the bills of electricity consumption in time. A bill for an amount of Rs.16,660/-, which was to be deposit as on 17.10.13 was issued to the complainant, which was wrong. The complainant lodged complaint regarding the said fact with the office of Patto Hira Singh, who told the complainant that the account of the meter has been changed, but no information about this was given to the complainant. However, when the opposite party removed the meter, the same was in working condition. Despite repeated requests of the complainant opposite party failed to do any needful. The complainant time and again requested the opposite parties, but with no effect. The complainant again received a bill for an amount of Rs.39,176/-. The complainant again approached the opposite party, who assured the complainant that next bill would be corrected and received Rs.12,780/- on 6.8.14 as part payment from the complainant. Thereafter complainant again lodged his complaint with opposite party. Despite that nothing has been done by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel Sh.S.K..Dhir, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up certain preliminary objections therein interalia that complaint is not maintainable; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Corporation; no cause of action arose to the complainant against the opposite parties. On merits, it is admitted upto the extent that the opposite party corporation issued the bill for Rs.16,660/- on average basis due to the meter is defective. The bill issued to the complainant as per rules and regulation of the corporation which is correct one. Further admitted to the extent that opposite parties issued the bill for Rs.39,176/- to the complainant and the same was paid by the complainant in three instalments and the surcharge amount of Rs.1095/- was refunded to the complainant vide sundry charges register Item no.133, Page no.29, Register no.92 and same was adjusted in the bills. Whichever bill was issued to the complainant same was correct one as per the consumption and as per rules and regulation of the corporation. Further denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint, opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavits Ex.C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11 and closed his evidence.

5.                To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Varinder Singh, Sub Division Officer, PSPCL Ex.O.P.No.1, 2/1 and copies of documents Ex.O.P.No.1, 2/2 to Ex. O.P.No.1, 2/9 and closed the evidence of opposite parties.

6.                 We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite party and have also carefully gone through the record.

7.                On the basis of evidence on record, complainant has vehemently contended that he is a consumer under opposite parties having electric connection bearing account no.F13NC640676 at his premises at Mandi Nihal Singh Wala. The complainant has been paying the bills of electricity consumption regularly. The bill for an amount of Rs.16,660/- was issued to the complainant payable as on 17.10.13. However, the said bill was wrong and was excess, copy whereof is Ex.C2. The complainant approached opposite parties and requested them to rectify the bill, copy of letter accounts for Ex.C3. However, the opposite parties removed the electric connection, which was in working condition. The complainant was again issued a bill for an amount of Rs.39,176/-, copy of the bill accounts for Ex.C4. The said bill is included amount of the previous bill i.e. Ex.C2. The complainant lodged the complaint with the electricity department regarding excess amount charged on account of service charges and requested the opposite parties to do the needful. The opposite parties received part payment of the bill on 6.8.14 and promise to rectify the amount in the next bill of electricity consumption. But to no effect. It has contended that opposite parties are negligent in providing service to the complainant and prayed that the amount which has been excessively charged from him be got adjusted in future bills.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has vehemently contended that the bills in dispute Ex.C2 and Ex.C4 have been issued on the basis of the consumption recorded from the meter of the complainant. The complainant was defaulter in paying the bills of the electricity consumption. The bill Ex.C4 is inclusive of the amount shown in bill Ex.C2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has already made the payment of the bill in dispute and the amount charged on account of surcharge to the tune of Rs.1095/- has been waived off and further rectification of the bill in dispute was required. The complainant deposited the due amount in installments after agreeing to the concession made by the opposite parties. The instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The complaint has no force and the same may be dismissed accordingly.

9.                We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.

10.              There is no denying the fact that the complainant was issued electricity bills for an amount of Rs.16,660/- and Rs.39,176/-, copies whereof are Ex.C2 and Ex.C4 respectively. The amount shown in copy of bill Ex.C4 is inclusive of amount shown in copy of bill Ex.C2, as the complainant defaulted payment of amount due vide bill Ex.C2. The complainant filed request vide letter Ex.C3 for making rectification in the outstanding bill in dispute. The opposite parties after application of mind waived off a sum of Rs.1095/-, which was levied as surcharge, out of the due amount. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has paid the entire amount in installments without any reservation. It is now too late for the complainant to challenge the bills in dispute or the demand made therein by the opposite parties. The complaint has no force. The complaint is meritless and therefore, the same deservers to be dismissed. Consequently, the instant complaint is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

                   (Bhupinder Kaur)          (Vinod Bala)        (S.S. Panesar)

                   Member                         Member                   President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:14.08.2015.