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

Consumer Complaint No  : 79 of 2016

Date of Institution               :01.11.2016

Date of Decision                : 14.3.2019

Dr. Kashmir Singh Sohal son of Sh. Kundan Singh resident of Bhagwan Shri Chander Colony, Tarn Taran.

                                                ...Complainant

Versus

1. SDO, PSPCL, City Sub Division, Tarn Taran,
2. Executive Engineer, PSPCL, City Sub Division tarn Taran,
3. Chairman, PSPCL, Patiala

…Opposite Parties.

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

Quorum:                Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member

                             Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member

For Complainant                       Dr. Kashamir Singh Sohal In person.

For Opposite Parties                 Sh. R.R. Arora Advocate

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant Kashmir Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against SDO, PSPCL, City Sub Division, Tarn Taran and another (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of opposite parties with the prayer to direct the opposite parties to correct the bill of complainant and the complainant is ready to pay the Bill from Jan 2015 to Sept. 2015 on average basis and prayed Rs. 8 Lacs as compensation.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is resident of Bhagwan Shri Chand Colony Tarn Taran. He is consumer of Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited Sub Division City Tarn Taran and his consumer No. is T22 GT220008M and account No. is 300 234 2835. The electricity meter is in the name of father of the complainant namely Kundan Singh who has since died. After the death of his father, the complainant has been regularly making the payment of electricity bill to the opposite parties detail of some months is as follows:-

          Month January 2015                  =       Rs. 2,270/-

          Month February 2015                =       Rs. 2,410/-

          Month of March 2015               =       Not available

          Month of April 2015                 =       Rs. 2,280/-

          Month of May 2015                  =       Not available

          Month of June 201 5                 =       Rs. 3,150/-

          Month of July 2015                   =       Rs. 2,930/-

          Month of August 2015              =       Rs. 2,440/-  

          Month of September 2015         =       Rs. 2,230/-

          Month of October 2015            =       Not available

          In this way the average bill comes to me Rs. 2,300 to 2,400. But after that the opposite party issued the bill of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant. The complainant told the opposite party that he did not consume this electricity. Due to change of weather, consumption has been reduced. Secondly we are residing for very few days in a month in said house. I told the department that I have not consumed the energy to this extent. The employees of the opposite parties told that we will check the meter as computer has given wrong bill. Some other persons have also received wrong bills. The bill of the complainant will be corrected. Thereafter some employee checked the mater and told that meter is defective and we will change the meter. But inspite of many visits by Baldev Singh Sonu to SDO office neither defective meter was replaced nor will bill was corrected.  But the bill was sent continuously on lump-sum basis. The meter is installed outside the house of complainant and belongs to opposite party and if the meter was defective it was the responsibility of the opposite party to replace it. When no action was taken on the repeated oral requests, on 18.2.2016 Baldev Singh Sonu requested the opposite party in writing. On this, after checking the meter, opposite party has written that it is not giving correct detail. On 30.3.2016, again the complainant gave in writing to correct the bill but of no effect. After that, the problem was not solved even after requesting it on 12.5.2016. Thereafter on dated 3.8.2016 as bill of Rs. 91,390/- was sent to the complainant on lump-sum basis. The complainant was waiting for solving the problem, suddenly on 26.8.2016 employees of the department came and disconnected the connection. On the same day, the connection was restored on depositing a sum of Rs. 30,000/- which was paid on 29.8.2016 and it was told to the complainant to deposit the remaining amount in two installments. The complainant was paying the regular bill of Rs. 2,300-2,400 on average basis for the year 2015. If the meter was defective, then the same was to be replaced by the Department and there is no fault of the complainant. It is not genuine to send the bill on the higher side than the actual average.  Inspite of repeated oral as well as written requests by the complainant, by not correcting the meter and by pressuring the complainant to pay bill on lump sum, it is negligence of the opposite party and injustice with the complainant. The complainant is a responsible and respectable citizen. By disconnecting the connection, the complainant has been harassed and humiliated.  Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite parties.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties who appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached the forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this Forum. The complainant is not consumer of the opposite party, as the complainant is a doctor which is an admitted fact from the complaint itself and he is running Sohal Eye Hospital and even the electric connection issued to the complainant is of category NRS with DPC i.e. for commercial purpose. As such, the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party, as he is running the hospital for commercial purpose. The alleged submission of the electric bill previously were due to reason that the premises was found locked and later on meter was shirted outside and if any rectification is required due to some mistake in the computer system, if can be rectified and above all that necessary correction has been already made regarding the alleged submission. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed being misuse and abuse of process with heavy costs as it is just a waste of time. On merits, it was pleaded that the premises was found locked and later on meter was shifted and any rectification is required to some mistake in the computer system it can be rectified and all the other allegations in the complaint have been denied by the opposite parties and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4        Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-25 and closed the evidence. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Ld. counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Surjit Singh SDO Ex. OPs/1 alongwith documents Ex. OPs/2 to Ex. OPs/6 and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 2 and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.

6        The complainant contended that the electric connection the opposite parties have issued a domestic connection in the name of Kundan Singh father of the complainant which is shown in the receipt issued by the opposite party vide Ex. C-2. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is running Sohal Eye Hospital in his house, and due to this reason, electric connection was issued to the complainant under the category of NRS with DPC. Ld. counsel for the opposite party further contended that the complainant is running the Hospital for commercial purpose and due to this reason the connection of complainant fall under NRS category.  To support their case, the opposite party has placed on record one photograph Ex. OPs/4. But this photograph is not giving any help to the opposite party because, there is no mention on the Board as alleged by the complainant ‘Sohal Eye Hospital’. Rather it shows that the complainant has written outside his house ‘Sohal Niwas’. Further the complainant has contended that he is a social worker and after retirement, he is serving the people in the area and is helping the poor persons with his experience because he is an expert of eye diseases and is Ex S.M.O. The opposite party has failed to produce on record any receipt which is issued by the complainant to any of the patient showing that he has received any money from any person for the treatment. The complainant has further placed on record Ex. C-3 i.e. application to seek the information under Right To Information Act and requested the opposite party to provide the information regarding change of category of connection. The complainant has also demanded the application for taking the connection, copy of order original order qua connection in question, copy of order vide which the connection of complainant has been changed from domestic connection to commercial connection. The complainant has also placed on record Ex. C-18, in which the opposite party has given the reply to the application filed under Right To Information Act by the complainant that application for taking the connection is not traced out insptie of best efforts. The opposite party further given reply that they tried their level best to trace out the order but the same is not traced out inspite of best efforts. The opposite party further given reply that they tried their level best to trace out the order for changing the connection in question to commercial connection, but the same is not traced out. By giving this reply, the opposite party has failed to prove on record that on what basis, the opposite party has changed the domestic connection to commercial connection and which order for changing the same has been passed. The opposite party has also failed to prove on record in this regard, when the connection in question was changed from domestic supply to N.R.S. The opposite party has also failed to prove on record that before changing the tariff from DS to NRS they have given any intimation/notice to the complainant and what procedure they have adopted for changing the tariff from DS to NRS.  By not adopting any procedure from changing the tariff from D.S. to NRS and by not retaining any record in their office, it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Moreover, the opposite parties cannot charge the commercial rate for whole house.

7        In view of above discussion, we accept the instant complaint and the bill which raised by the opposite party of Rs. 91,390/- is quashed. The opposite parties are directed the take the average of the next 6 months period of the connection in question and after that the opposite party will issue the fresh bill under DS category to the complainant regarding the previous disputed months. Amount, if any, received in excess by the opposite party from the complainant, same be adjusted in the next bills of the complainant.  The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties, therefore, the complainant is also entitled to Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand only) as litigation expenses.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.