DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 193 of 13-08-2009<br /> Decided on : 15-12-2009 <br /> <br /> Saheed Baba Deep Singh Hostel, Opp. FCI Godown, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, through its Partner Shri Gurpartap Singh<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2.S.D.O./A.E.E. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikaramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Lalit Garg, Advocate, counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. R D Goyal, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKARAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the partner of afore-mentioned Hostel where electric connection bearing A/c No. TS 16-0519 has been installed. He was regularly paying the electricity bills so issued by the opposite parties and nothing was due against him. Last bill dated 1.6.09 for Rs. 4750/- issued by the opposite parties also stood paid. He received a Memo No. 2861 dated 3-8-09 raising a demand of Rs. 2,40,122/- alleging therein that the meter installed in his premises was changed on the basis of MCO No. 51/66192 dated 29-06-09 and as per checking of the internal audit party, an amount of Rs. 2,40,122/- was outstanding against him for the period from 10/2008 to 6/2009. He asserts that the impugned demand is illegal, arbitrary and not binding upon him on the ground that details of the impugned amount was not given in the notice; no basis or criteria has been mentioned for raising highly exaggerated demand and no opportunity of being heard was provided to him. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned notice dated 3.8.09 and to pay to him compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment alongwith Rs. 5500/- as costs.<br /> 2. The opposite parties filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file it and he has not come before this Forum with clean hands. On merits, it has been admitted that complainant is holder of electric connection No. TS16-519 and he deposited bill for the month of 1.6.09 for Rs. 4750/-, but it has been denied that he is paying his bills regularly. It has been submitted that previously the sanctioned load of the complainant was 0.63 KW which was enhanced to 19.746 K.W. with three face connection. A new three face meter was installed on 18-08-2008 with initial reading of 17 KWH after removal of old meter. Meter reader Bahadur Singh recorded the bogus reading as per load 0.63 KW and accordingly bills were being issued on the basis of wrong reading recorded by the meter reader. On 26-06-09, the complainant moved an application to the effect that block of his meter has been burnt and Gurlabh Sngh-lineman visited the spot and gave report that consumption is 053398 KWH whereas the complainant kept on depositing the bills on the basis of wrong reading. The internal audit party after inspecting the record and after deducting the amount already deposited by the complainant on the basis of wrong reading, found an amount of Rs. 2,40,122/- due from the complainant. Accordingly, they issued notice for the period from October, 2008 to June, 2009 on the basis of actual consumption which is legal and valid and the complainant is bound to pay the same. It has been pleaded that they issued show cause notice to Bahadur Singh-ALM-cum-meter reader on 27-07-09. Remaining averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the same.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopy of letter dated 3.8.09 Ex. C-2, photocopy of bill Ex. C-3, photocopy of payment receipt Ex. C-4, photocopies of bills Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-8 and photocopy of reply Ex. C-9.<br /> 4. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Sarabjit Singh Kalsi, S.D.O. Ex. R-1, photocopy of noting reg. 3 face connection Ex. R-2, photocopies of meter reading reports Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-4, photocopy of application dated 25-6-09 Ex. R-5, photocopy of MCO Ex. R-6, photocopies of letters dated 27-7-09 and 31-08-09 Ex. R-7 & Ex. R-8 respectively, photocopy of bill ledger Ex. R-9, photocopies of letters dated 6.7.09 and 3.8.09 Ex. R-10 and Ex. R-11 respectively and photocopy of ledger Ex. R-12. <br /> 5. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.<br /> 6. Recapitulation of the facts of the case would show that electric meter of the complainant was changed on the basis of Meter Change Order dated 29-06-2009 and according to report of the internal audit party of the opposite parties, a demand of Rs. 2,40,122/- was raised against the complainant vide memo dated 03-08-2009. The complainant alleges that the impugned demand is illegal as he had been regularly paying the bills as per meter reading and the last paid bill was dated 01-06-09 for<br /> Rs. 4750/-. On the other hand, the case of the opposite parties is that the impugned bill was issued on the basis of actual reading of the meter. Further the case is that the meter reader had been conniving with the complainant and was noting less reading for the purpose of bill. When the old meter was removed to install a new meter, it was found that the reading of the old meter was not being properly recorded. The consumption of old meter recorded 1049 units and the sanctioned load was 19.746 KW. Previously load of the meter was 0.63 KW. Load was extended to 19.746 KW on 18-08-08. When the block of the meter had burnt, the load was 19.746 KW in the month of June, 2009. The consumption was 1003 units while the sanctioned load was 0.63 KW but in the month of June, 2009, the sanctioned load was 19.746 KW. Therefore, after multiplying the load to the consumption 1003 units, the average consumption came to 31951 units. Accordingly, demand of Rs. 1,61,070/- was rightly raised. <br /> 7. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that complainant was not given any opportunity before raising the impugned demand stands repelled by notice dated 3.8.09 Ex. C-2, when he was served with notice for depositing a sum of Rs. 2,40,122/-. He was also asked that he may obtain any other information in this regard if he wanted from the office of the opposite parties. He did not avail this opportunity. Therefore, now he cannot be heard saying that he was not afforded any opportunity before raising impugned demand. <br /> 8. The opposite parties have served the meter reader with a show cause notice for taking action against him for noting less reading. The allegations of the opposite parties have also been corroborated by the report dated 6-7-09 of the internal auditors Ex. R-10. The allegations of the complainant remained as they were because there is nothing on record for their corroboration.<br /> 9. The complainant is running a hostel for commercial purposes. The opposite parties have not specifically pleaded in their written reply that complainant is running a hostel for commercial purposes and as such, complaint is barred. But at the same time, it has been pleaded in objection No. 1 in preliminary objections of the written reply that complaint is not maintainable as per law. The complainant has not filed any re-joinder. Therefore, the above said preliminary objection means that complaint is barred as the complainant is running a hostel for commercial purposes.<br /> 10. The perusal of Ex. R-7 shows that the complainant had earlier approached the Hon'ble Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Service) for redressal of his grievances. Therefore, he could not approach this Forum under Section 22-C (2) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Therefore, the complaint is barred in this view of the matter also.<br /> 11. In view of the finding recorded above, the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 15-12-2009 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) Member <br />