DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 180 of 11.5.2018

                                      Decided on: 25.8.2020

Dr.Narinder Singh Kochhar, 7 Charan Bagh, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Assistant Executive Engineer, P.S.P.C.L. East Sub Division, Model Town, Patiala.
2. Punjab State Power  Corporation Ltd. through its C.M.D.,The Mall, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

For the complainant:     Sh.G.A.Kumar, Advocate,

For Opposite Parties:    Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate                        

 ORDER

JASJIT SINGH BHINDER, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Dr.Narinder Singh Kochhar,(hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Assistant Executive Engineer, P.S.P.C.L. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2.  In  brief, the case of the complainant is that he is using the electricity services of OPs under Consumer No.P12JRO40213A, having account No.3000032339 for the last 37 years.It is stated that the OPs under their mal practice are quoting meter security as Rs.zero and consumption security as Rs.70/- only, instead of Rs.4020/- additionally recovered in the year 2013, for their own wrongful gains. It is stated that the complainant many times requested OP No.1 for the correction of the same, as per his own office record i.e. A&A form, consumption register No.CS-2, receipt No.RO-4/BA-16 & cash book entries but OPs did nothing.
3. It is further stated that in this regard the complainant made a complaint to OP No.1 vide application dated 4.12.2017 but OP No.2 also remained mum. Then  he filed an application dated 5.1.2018 under RTI, Act, followed by first appeal dated 22.2.2018 to Chief Engineer HRD(Jasvinder Pal) who arbitrarily closed the file on 19.4.2018 with the remarks that  “its reasons/status cannot be made known to the complainant”.
4. That by not correcting  the wrong entries of security amount in bills and calculate interest thereon from the date of deposit till the actual date of today amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which also caused mental and financial torture to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to correct the amount of meter security and consumption-security to the tune of Rs.4020/- additionally recovered in the year 2013; to pay interest amount in cash on total security amount under Section 47 of Electricity Act-2003 read with ESIM Regn No.17.3 & 19.3,since the date of deposit of security till actual date of its payment and also to pay Rs.20,000/- for causing mental torture to Sr.Citizen; Rs.20,000/- as damages and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the complaint.
5. Upon notice, OPs appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written reply by raising  preliminary objections, that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant  has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands as he has intentionally concealed the material information.
6. On merits, it is admitted that an electric connection bearing consumer No.P12JR040213 having account No.3000032339 is running in the name of the complainant. It is also admitted that security amount is shown as Rs.70/- and meter security is shown as Rs.zero. It is denied that the complainant had deposited Rs.4020/- as security. It is submitted that only Rs.1020/- has been deposited as security by the complainant on different time. It is  denied that the OPs recovered any additional security in the year 2013 nor the complainant has produced any receipt in this regard.
7. It is stated to be matter of record that the complainant made complaint with OP No.2 on 4.12.2017. It is further stated that reply to the complaint dated 4.12.2017 was sent to the complainant vide letter No.189 dated 12.1.2018 by the concerned office that the record is very old and the same has been damaged or not traceable because the office of OP No.1 was shifted to many places from time to time  and he was further told that if the record is available with him then he can himself produce the same.
8. It is further submitted that all the seven receipts attached by the complainant with the complaint do not relate to security. It is further submitted that receipt dated 26.11.1980 for a sum of Rs.180/- relates to security amount. The receipt dated 6.1.1981 is not related to security amount rather the said amount of Rs.80/- was deposited for fixed charges as clearly mentioned on the said receipt. Similarly the form dated 7.3.1983 is also not  related to any security amount of Rs.20/- and the said form is of some other account/connection. It is stated that the said form dated 7.3.1983 bears account No.MB3-587 whereas the present account number of the complainant is JR040213. The receipt dated 1.3.1995  for a sum of Rs.480/- pertains to the security amount.The receipt dated 9.3.1998 also does not relate to the security amount.The complainant got enhanced the connected load as such the amount of Rs.2250/- was deposited as service charges.It is nowhere mentioned on the said receipt that the said amount was deposited by the complainant as security.Similarly the whole amount i.e.Rs.660/- of receipt dated 21.1.1998 is not deposited as security but only Rs.360/- was deposited as security and the remaining amount of Rs.300/- was deposited as service charges.Similarly the amount of Rs.350/- of receipt dated 23.5.1995 also do not relates to the security amount. As such only the amount of Rs.180/- vide receipt dated 26.11.1980, Rs.480/- vide receipt dated 1.3.1995 and Rs.360/- vide receipt dated 21.1.1998 was deposited as security amount.Hence the total amount of security is Rs.1020/- and the same will be shown in the upcoming bills of the complainant.
9. It is admitted that the complainant filed first appeal dated 22.2.2018 to Chief Engineer HRD. It is denied that the Chief Engineer HRD arbitrary closed the file on 19.4.2018 with remarks that its reasons/status cannot be made known to the complainant. It is submitted that reply to the RTI application was sent to the complainant vide letter No.1208/11 dated 15.3.2018. Nobody appeared on behalf of the complainant before CE/HRD.As such the case was closed as per memo No.2214/17 dated 10.5.2018. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
10. In support of the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.CA, affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C1 copy of complaint dated 4.12.2017 made to CMD of PSPCL, Exs.C2 to C5 photocopies of security receipts, Ex.C6 copy of RTI application, Ex.C7 copy of order in appeal dated 15.3.2018,Ex.C8 complainant’s comments on order dated 15.3.2018,Ex.C9 copy of bill dated 29.1.2018 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of SDO Sandeep Puri, Ex.OP1 copy of letter No.189 dated 12.1.2018,Ex.OP2  copy of letter No.1208/11 dated 15.3.2018,Ex.OP3 copy of letter No.2214/17 dated 10.5.2018 ,Ex.OP4 copy  of receipt regarding security amount and closed the evidence.
12. The ld. counsel for the parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same ,heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
13. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has deposited Rs.4020/- as security with the OPs.The ld. counsel for the complainant further argued that he has placed all the receipts on the file which were available with the complainant and it is cleared that the OPs have cheated the complainant. As such the complaint be allowed.
14. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that Rs.1020/- has been deposited by the complainant as security which  has been clearly shown in Ex.OP4.The ld. counsel for the OPs has further argued that there is no document on the file produced by the complainant to prove that he has deposited Rs.4020/- as security. The onus was on the complainant to prove his case but he has failed to do so and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
15. As per the contents of the complainant, it is stated that the OPs for their own malpractice are quoting meter security as Zero and security amount as Rs.70/- instead of Rs.4020/-,so the onus was on the complainant to prove that he has deposited Rs.4020/- as security.

The OPs have clearly stated that the complainanthas only deposited Rs.1020/- as security and the onus was on the complainant to prove that he had deposited Rs.4020/-but he has failed to do so.

Both the parties have filed their affidavits in support of their case.

16. In the receipt Ex.C2, the security amount has been shown as Rs.    180/-.In the another receipt Rs.80/- were deposited but that amount is of fixed charges.The receipt Ex.C5, produced by the complainant on the file pertains to another meter number.The another receipt,Ex.C4 is on the file vide which Rs.480/- was deposited.In this receipt Rs.2250/- has been shown as deposited but that amount has been shown to have been deposited to increase the load.The receipt,Ex.C5 is on the file in which security amount of Rs.350/- is shown to have been deposited.
17. Sh. Sandeep Puri, SDO, Commercial Sub Division has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, in which in para no.3 he has stated that the complainant has not deposited Rs.4020/- as security but he had deposited Rs.1020/- only.There is bill,Ex.OP4, in which security amount of Rs.1020/- has been shown to have been deposited.The another amount which was deposited by the complainant is Rs.2250/-.That amount is regarding enhancement of connected load. It is not mentioned in that receipt of Rs.2250/- that amount was deposited as security.
18. In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant has failed to prove that he had deposited Rs.4020/-as security.As per record of the OPs he had only deposited Rs.1020/- which has been shown in bill,Ex.OP4.So there is no ground to consider that the complainant had deposited Rs.4020/-as security.
19. For the reasons recorded above, the complainant failed to prove his case.The complaint is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.      

DATED:25.8.2020       

                            Vinod Kumar Gulati               Jasjit Singh Bhinder                                                    Member                                    President