Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/391

Jaspal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Executive Engineer PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

01 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    C. C. No :                 391 of 2017

Date of Institution :     11.12.2017

Date of Decision :          1.04.2019

Jaspal Singh aged about 56 years s/o Joginder Singh, r/o Village Kameana, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                              ......Complainant

Versus

1. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation,

City Sub Division, Faridkot.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman cum Managing Director.

.........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:  Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

   Sh Dildeep Singh, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to set aside the demand of Rs.15,790/-raised vide bill dt 14.08.2017 and for Rs.26,560/- vide bill dated 14.10.2017 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for

cc no. 391 of 2017

harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                  Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that electric connection bearing a/c no. 3000423671 running in the name of  complainant, is installed by Ops outside his house and he has been paying all bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due against him on account of consumption charges. It is submitted that average consumption of his house is about 200 units and despite several requests by complainant, OPs have not been sending him bills regularly. OPs did not send him bill from January, 2017 to July 2017. Thereafter, complainant received a bill dated 14.08.2017 for Rs.15,790/-. On receiving the same, complainant immediately approached OPs and requested them to get deposited the bill on the basis of actual consumption as actual consumption of his house is about 200 units. On this OPs assured to correct the bill and promised to send the bills regularly.  After that complainant received a bill dated 14.10.2017 for Rs.26,560/- and on receiving the same, complainant again approached OP-2 and requested that average consumption of his house is only about 200 units and they have wrongly shown the consumption as 1400 units.  Complainant also requested them to get deposited the bill on the basis of actual consumption and prayed for withdrawing the same, but OPs refused to pay heed to his genuine requests, rather threatened him to disconnect his connection if he fails to pay the entire amount in time. The demand raised by OPs is totally wrong and illegal and this act of

cc no. 391 of 2017

OPs in raising huge demand is illegal and unlawful and refusal by OPs to withdraw the said amount amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to him. He has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, this complaint.

3                                              Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 12.12.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                               On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complainant has not reached the Forum with clean hands and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and asserted that electricity bills are generated as per consumption and there is no illegality in these bills. However, on merits ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that bills are being sent to complainant regularly but payments are not being made by complainant as per bills. Complainant never approached them for sending the bills regularly as bills are being sent timely to all consumers. Bill sent in August contains the previous arrears which complainant failed to pay. Moreover, bills are

cc no. 391 of 2017

sent to complainant are correct and are as per reading of consumption used by complainant. Due to non payment of bills, outstanding amount became arrears. They have rightly issued bills for the period from 22.02.2016 to 15.12.2017, which complainant has not paid and amount of Rs.30,290/-was due on 15.12.2017 out of which complainant paid Rs.10,000/- and thereafter remaining amount of Rs.20,290/-plus consumption charges after 15.12.2017 are lying due towards complainant. Complainant has received uninterrupted supply of electricity and bills are also sent to him timely and thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part. Amount in question is still due and recoverable from him and this amount is charged in bill in question as per rules and regulations of Ops. It is further averred that demand raised by Ops is quite legal and they have every right to recover the same. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 and closed the same.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of

cc no. 391 of 2017

Gaurav Kakkar AEE as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-14 and closed the evidence.

7                                                        The ld Counsel for complainant argued that electric connection in question is being installed by OPs and complainant has been paying all bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due against him on account of consumption charges. Average consumption of his house is about 200 units. It is further argued that OPs did not send him bill from January, 2017 to July 2017 and then, they issued bill dated 14.08.2017 for Rs.15,790/- and on receiving the said bill complainant approached OPs and requested to get deposited the bill on the basis of actual consumption. OPs assured to correct the bill and promised to send the bills regularly, but they again issued bill dated 14.10.2017 for Rs.26,560/-. Complainant again approached OP-2 and requested that average consumption of his house is only about 200 units and they have wrongly shown the consumption as 1400 units.  He made several requests to withdraw the same, but all in vain. Ops refused to hear him and threatened to disconnect his connection if he fails to pay the bill in time. The demand raised by OPs is wrong and  this act of OPs in raising huge demand of Rs.26,560/-is illegal and unlawful and it has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 3.

cc no. 391 of 2017

 8                             To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued ld counsel for Ops argued before the Forum that complainant has levelled false and frivolous allegations against them and asserted that they have been sending bills to complainant in time and there is no delay on their part. It is brought before the Forum that amount challenged is still due and outstanding towards complainant due to non payment of earlier bills by complainant in time. They have rightly issued bills for the period from 22.02.2016 to 15.12.2017, which complainant has not paid and amount of Rs.30,290/-was due towards him on 15.12.2017. Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- and thereafter remaining amount of Rs.20,290/-plus consumption charges after 15.12.2017 are lying due and recoverable towards complainant. Complainant has received uninterrupted supply of electricity and bills are also sent to him timely and thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part. Complainant has failed to make payment of consumption charges regularly and this due amount on account of consumption charges became arrears and he is liable to pay the same. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with them. Ld counsel for Ops stressed on documents Ex OP-1 to 14.

9                                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through and perused the record available on file.

cc no. 391 of 2017

10                             The case of the complainant is that he has been using electric connection running in his name and has been regularly paying all the bills as and when issued and nothing is due towards him. OPs did not send him bills regularly from January 2017 to July 2017. Grievance of complainant is that the OPs issued him a bill dt 14.08.2017 in which they raised demand of Rs.15,790/-and thereafter sent him bill dated 14.10.2017 vide which they demanded Rs.26,560/-from complainant on account of consumption charges. Repeated requests by complainant that his average consumption of only about 200 units and bills sent by OPs is very excessive, bore no fruit. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the other hand plea taken by Ops is that they have been sending bills to complainant regularly in time, but he himself failed to make payment of bills in time. Bills from 22.02.2016 to 15.12.2017 have been sent to him regularly, but he did not pay the dues in time. On 15.12.2017 Rs.30290/-was due towards him and after deposition of Rs.10,000/-by complainant Rs.20,290/- remained due alongwith consumption charges after 15.12.2017 which complainant has failed to pay. All this amount is charged as per rules and as per power consumed by complainant. there is no illegality in bill issued to him.

11                                                       Ld counsel for OPs brought our attention towards documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-13 which clearly prove the version of OPs that from 22.02.2016 to 15.12.2017, they have issued bills to complainant regularly and Ex OP-14 is self explanatory as it is the account display list and it clears the point that huge amount is lying

cc no. 391 of 2017

unpaid by complainant. On the contrary, complainant has nothing to contradict the version and documents adduced by Ops.

12                                             In the light of above discussion and evidence and documents produced by the parties, we are fully convinced with arguments advanced by ld counsel for OPs and are of considered opinion that OPs have produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove their case. Complaint himself failed in making payment of bills regularly and in time and when huge amount is lying due towards him, he cannot seek relief for his own wrongs of non depositing the consumption charges in time. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 1.04.2019

 

                                      (Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                         Member                        President