Punjab

Gurdaspur

CC/271/2014

Griphan Masih - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.S.P.C.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.Boparai

20 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURDASPUR
DISTRICT COURTS, JAIL ROAD, GURDASPUR
PHONE NO. 01874-245345
 
Complaint Case No. CC/271/2014
 
1. Griphan Masih
S/o Sh.Jalal Masih r/o vill. Babri Nangal
gurdaspur
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. P.S.P.C.Ltd
throug its S.e. Jail Road
gurdaspur
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Sh. Naveen Puri PRESIDENT
  Sh.G.B.S.Bhullar MEMBER
  Smt.Jagdeep Kaur MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:B.S.Boparai, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Sh.Amardeep Singh Shergill, Adv., Advocate
ORDER

Complainant Griphan Masih through the present complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter called 'the Act') praying for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite parties being the different authorities/offices at Gurdaspur of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., to set aside the impugned bill in question and instead issue the bill as per the actual consumption made by the complainant besides to pay him Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony, all in the interest of justice.  

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he has been holder of domestic electric connection bearing Account No.G 47TV 240859 N  and has been paying its bills regularly that were to the tune of Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/- per bill. However, to his astonishment he received the impugned bill for Rs.49,598/- on 22.6.2014 showing a consumption of 6158 units in a period of two months. The complainant has further stated that his connected load was less than 1 K.W. and the impugned bill was not possible under the prevailing circumstances but the opposite parties would not listen and thus he preferred the present complaint with the desired relief

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the joint written version stating therein that the consumption of 6158 units is as per the actual meter readings that showed the initial as 17195 and final as 23303 showing a distinct consumption of 6158 units and as such the complainant was liable to pay the same. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.     

4.        Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 and copies of bills Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Arun Kumar A.E.E. Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.       We find that the complainant’s bimonthly Electricity Bill dated 22.06.2014 for Rs.9,598/- pertains to an energy consumption of 6158 units in two months i.e., 3039 units per month (with Meter Status as ‘O’ i.e., okay) and that does not fall in conformity with the his consumption right from the date of installation till the Bill in question. The OP’s own produced affidavit Ex.OP1 shows a consumption of 495 units in 10 months (with Meter status as ‘O’ i.e., okay) i.e., 50 units per month. This 60 fold sudden ‘LIFT’ in consumption should have been a sufficient ground of query as to its cause but a stoic draw of an inadvertently exaggerated Bill had been the only result. And, to top it all the next bimonthly Bill has been drawn for a consumption Bill for 2039 units with Meter Status as ‘N’ i.e., reading not taken. (Sic). However, it is the prerogative even the legal right of the OP service providers to get the unusually and/or somewhat fast/slow Energy Meters checked/ inspected at their MI Laboratory and to replace/change the defective ones at their discretion (will & wisdom); but if they prefer to let the defective (fast/slow) meters to stay back the consumers need not be made to suffer. Here, the OP service providers are held guilty of deficiency in service and hence liable to charge @ average consumption only.    

8.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and setting-aside the impugned Bill, we ORDER the opposite parties to draw a fresh Consumption Bill (payable by the complainant) but @ his average consumption besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation (for having caused him un-necessary harassment, inconvenience and delay) and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the complainant shall be liable to pay the future consumption Bills only with effect from the date of the present complaint and the aggregate awarded amount shall also attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actually paid.  

9.           Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.                         

 

   (Naveen Puri)       

         President

 

 

ANNOUNCED:                   (G.B.S.Bhullar)                          (Jagdeep Kaur)

January 20, 2015.                            Member.                                           Member.

*MK*            

 
 
[ Sh. Naveen Puri]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Sh.G.B.S.Bhullar]
MEMBER
 
[ Smt.Jagdeep Kaur]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.