Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Room No. 208 2^nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran

Consumer Complaint No  :   18 of  2019

Date of Institution                      :  18.03.2019

Date of Decision               :  03.07.2019

Resham Singh aged 38 years son of Amarjit Singh resident of village Lahuka Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran..

                                                                             …..Complainant

                             Versus

1. Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Managing Director,
2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited, Division Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran,
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited, Sub Division Kairon, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.

                                                                             …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section  12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member

For Complainant                     Sh. Resham Singh inperson..

For Opposite Parties               Exparte.

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant Resham Singh has filed the present complaint under Section  12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called   as 'the Act') against Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Managing Director and others (Opposite parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties with further prayer to withdraw the bill No. 5268 dated 17.2.2019 amounting to Rs. 12,570/- raised on the complainant by the opposite parties besides this the complainant has also claimed Rs. 50,000/- as damages.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is running flour mill / Aata Chaki at village Lahuka Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran since the year 2012 having S.P. electric connection bearing account No. T41SP210211P and the complainant has been using the above said connection since a long time and the complainant is consumer of the opposite party. The Aata Chakki flour mill is sole livelihood of the complainant. Previously, the average bill for the above said S.P. connection as continuously sent to the complainant by the opposite party to the tune of Rs. 8,000/-, Rs. 9,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- and the complainant has paid the bills to the opposite party. On 17.2.2019 the opposite party has issued one bill No. 5268 dated 17.2.2019 amounting to Rs. 12,570/- wherein a sum of Rs. 4,048/- has been added by the respondents/ opposite parties qua the M.D.I, i.e. 18.20 which is illegal, null and void, against law, against facts and is liable to be set aside/ cancelled and in the said bill demand surcharge has been shown as Rs. 4,048/- which is against law, against facts and the complainant is not liable to pay any amount of bill to the opposite party.  The complainant approached to the opposite party many a times and requested the opposite party to correct the bill and not to recover any excess amount of Rs. 4,048/- qua the bill No. 5268 dated 17.2.2019 but the opposite party has finally refused to accept the request of the complainant. Due to issuing of above said Bill No. 5268 dated 17.2.2019, the complainant has suffered mental harassment and mental agony and the complainant has suffered a huge loss. There is negligence in the service of the opposite party. Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite party, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite party.  Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-2, Copy of Bill No. 5173 dated 11.1.2019 Ex. C-3, Copy of Bill No. 5268 dated 17.2.2019 Ex. C-4.

3        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party. Consequently, the opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.5.2019 of this Forum.

4        We have heard the complainant and have also carefully gone through the evidence and documents on the file.

5        The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 and in his affidavit, the complainant declared that he is running Flour Mill / Aata Chaki at village Lahuka Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran since the year 2012 having S.P. electric connection bearing account No. T41SP210211P and the complainant has been using the above said connection since a long time and the complainant is consumer of the opposite party. The Aata Chakki flour mill is sole livelihood of the complainant. He further declared that the average bill for the above said S.P. connection as continuously sent to the complainant by the opposite party to the tune of Rs. 8,000/-, Rs. 9,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- and the complainant has paid the bills to the opposite party. On 17.2.2019 the opposite party has issued one bill No. 5268 dated 17.2.2019 Ex. C-4 amounting to Rs. 12,570/- wherein a sum of Rs. 4,048/- has been added by the respondents/ opposite parties qua the M.D.I, i.e. 18.20 which is illegal, null and void, against law, against facts and is liable to be set aside/ cancelled and in the said bill demand surcharge has been shown as Rs. 4,048/- which is against law, against facts and the complainant is not liable to pay any amount of bill to the opposite party.  The complainant approached to the opposite party many a times and requested the opposite party to correct the bill and not to recover any excess amount of Rs. 4,048/- qua the bill No. 5268 dated 17.2.2019 but the opposite party has finally refused to accept the request of the complainant. Due to issuing of above said Bill No. 5268 dated 17.2.2019, the complainant has suffered mental harassment and mental agony and the complainant has suffered a huge loss.  

6        The evidence led by the complainant on the file goes unchallenged and unrebutted as Opposite Party is proceeded against exparte in the present complaint and there is no reason on the file as to why the evidence produced by the complainant be not believed. Otherwise also, due notice was issued to the Opposite Party but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party  in order to contest the complaint which shows that the Opposite Party has nothing to say upon the allegations leveled against it by the complainant. The opposite party has not given any prior detail to the complainant of Rs. 4,098 under the head of Demand Surcharge before adding the amount in Bill Ex. C-4. As such, the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint and the complainant requested the opposite party several times to resolve the matter but the opposite party did not care to resolve the matter in question and it has not only committed deficiency in service, but also indulged in an unfair trade practice.           

7        In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds and the same is hereby allowed exparte with costs in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party. The Bill dated 17.2.2019 Ex. C-4 is quashed.  However, the opposite party is at liberty to recover the consumption charges of the disputed period from the complainant on average basis of previous 6 months. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite party. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.3,000/- ( Rs. Three Thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony. Opposite Party is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.