| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 418 of 6.11.2017 Decided on: 14.9.2021 Krishan Singh aged about 60 years son of Kula Ram, R/o Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - PSPCL through its Chairman The Mall, Patiala.
- SDO/JE/Assistant Sub Division City Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar,Member ARGUED BY Sh.Preet Mohinder Singh, counsel for the complainant. Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal, counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act against the PSPCL and another.
- The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is consumer of the OPs having electricity connection No.CF621329M and meter No.9026681.It is averred that the meter was installed outside the premises of the complainant and the sanctioned load of meter was 4KW. It is further averred that the complainant purchased the house from its owner Balbir Singh having executed the agreement on 15.9.2016. It is further averred that the electricity connection was registered in the name of Sarben Singh, real brother of Balbir Singh.
- It is further averred that at the time of purchase of the house electric connection bearing account No.CF621329M and meter No.157360 was installed . In the month of November,2008, the said meter was burnt and Sarben Singh moved an application with the PSPCL for changing the meter. It is further averred that on the application new electricity meter was installed. It is further averred that the old meter was removed in the absence of the complainant. It is further averred that due to some family problem, he could not pay the electricity charges in time and paid the amount of Rs.45000/- in lump sum in three installments of Rs.15000/-each and thereafter paid the electricity charges regularly. It is further averred that in the month of October,2017(24.10.2017) bill for the consumption of 586 units of Rs.3939/-was received but in the said bill Rs.77811/- was shown as sundry charges. On receipt of the bill he approached the OPs but they failed to give any satisfactory reply. He also made request for the correction of the bill but to no effect. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony, harassment and pain to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs quash the illegal, unjust and arbitrary demand of arrears of Rs.77811/-; to pay Rs.15000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses.
- Upon notice OPs appeared and filed the written reply having raised preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the electric connection bearing account No.SCF621329M having meter No.9026681 was installed at the address mentioned in the complaint, running in the name of Sarben Singh, with the sanctioned load of 4KW. It is also admitted that electric connection bearing No.CF621329M was installed at the given address. It is also admitted that meter of the complainant was removed in the month of March,2017 due to non payment of electricity bills. It is also admitted that bill dated 24.10.2017 was issued for the consumption of 586 units and in the said bill Rs.59036/- was mentioned as sundry charges and Rs.18,775/- as arrears of current year.
- It is submitted that during the month of June,2015, the said meter was found defective and got changed in the month of July,2015 in the presence of the complainant and new meter was installed by JE Roop Singh.The old meter was taken to the ME Lab for routine checking and was checked on 7.10.2016 and it was found that the body of the meter was tampered with and after opening the meter a resistance was affixed in the CT circuit of the meter to stop the actual consumption of electricity. It is a case of theft of electricity .The OPs calculated the amount to the tune of Rs.41,451/-according to LDHF formula and demand notice dated 12.10.2016 was sent to the complainant for a sum of Rs.41,451/- alongwith Rs.3000/-as compounding fee. It is further submitted that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.15000/- through cheque dated 28.3.2017 which was dishonoured.
- It is further submitted that new meter was installed and bill for the month of August,2015 was sent with C code on average basis of 43 units but the new meter was showing actual consumption of 400 units and the difference of 357 units was required to be charged and hence an amount of Rs.2165/- was charged in the dispute bill as per the report of audit party.The total arrear is 41,451+15,420+2165= 59036/- mentioned in the bill.It is further averred that the complainant is defaulter in paying the electricity bills regularly. After denying all other averments the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs have tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Balwinder Kumar, SDO alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP12 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the meter was installed outside the premises of the complainant and the sanctioned load of the meter was 4KW.The complainant purchased the house from Balbir Singh having executed the agreement on 15.9.2006. In the month of November,2008 the meter installed in the house was burnt and thereafter, new meter was installed..The complainant also paid Rs.45000/- in three installments of Rs.15000/-each.The ld. counsel further argued that the meter installed outside the premises of the complainant was working properly. It is stated that all of sudden bill of October/2017 of Rs.77811/-was sent which was illegal. So the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that this is theft case and this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the same. So the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove the case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is electricity bill,Ex.C2 is agreement to sell, Ex.C3 is letter of PSPCL, Exs.C4 and C5 photographs,Ex.C6 is bill.
- On the other hand Sh.Balwinder Kumar, SDO, Patran has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement. He has also stated that the meter was sent to the ME Lab for checking and found that the body of the meter was tampered and after opening the meter a resistance was affixed in the CT circuit of the meter. As such the meter was found tampered to stop the actual consumption of electricity and the checking report is Ex.OP3.Thereafter new meter was installed.Ex.OP1 is the record of the OPs.Ex.OP2 is also record of the OPs.Ex.OP3 is the checking report of PSPCL. It is stated that the meter in question was found tampered with as per the report of the ME Lab.Ex.OP4 is show cause notice sent under Section 135 of the theft of Electricity Act, to the complainant.
- So it is clear that the complainant was indulging in the theft of the energy as per the report,Ex.OP3 and it is a theft case under Section 135 of Electricity Act. This Commission has no jurisdiction. So the complainant has illegally and wrongly has filed this complaint knowingly well that he was indulging in theft. The complaint is accordingly dismissed with special costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Legal Aid Fund of this Commission.
ANNOUNCED DATED:14.9.2021 Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
