Punjab

Kapurthala

CC/08/152

Baij Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSEB - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Suresh Kalia,Advocate

03 Dec 2008

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA
Building No. b-XVII-23, 1st Floor, fatch Bazar, Opp. Old Hospital, Amritsar Road, Kapurthala
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/152

Baij Nath
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Chairman
PSEB
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Gulshan Prashar 2. Paramjeet singh Rai 3. Smt. Shashi Narang

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Baij Nath

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Sh.Suresh Kalia,Advocate

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto 2002 against the opposite parties on the plea that he is consumer of the opposite parties PSEB having an electric connection bearing A/c No. X12C B581157P for residential purpose and has ben paying the electricity bills regularly. It is further alleged that he received a bill dated 22/8/2008 for Rs.3840/- which is wrong and arbitrary as he consumed only 138 units. He approached opposite parties and requested them to rectify the bill. Opposite parties assured him to rectify the bill and asked him to deposit the amount. He deposited Rs.522/- on 1.9.2008 as a partial payment. It is further alleged that on 18/9/2008 officials of the opposite parties namely Bhagat and Atwal alongwith others came to his house and forcibly disconnected his electric connection and also removed his electric meter without any prior notice. He requested the opposite parties many a times to restore his electric connection but without any result. . This act of the respondent is illegal, wrong and without any authority and is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is, therefore, prayed that the opposite parties be directed to restore his electric connection and also to pay monetary compensation of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.. 2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties and Paramjit Singh AAE Sub Division City NO.1 Kapurthala appeared on behalf of opposite parites and requested for a date to fie written statement but later on opposite parties failed to appear so they were proceeded ex-parte. 3. In support of his case, the complainant led evidence in the shape of his own affidavit as Ex.CA and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C5. In his affidavit, the complainant reiterated all the facts pleaded in the complaint. Ex. C1 is the bill received from the opposite parties by the complainant which reveals that the opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs.3840/- from the complainant. Ex. C5 is the letter to SDO by the complainant regarding illegal disconnection of his electric connection by the officials of th PSEB. 4. The evidence produced by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Hence we accept the evidence and prayer of the complainant. we direct the opposite parties to restore the electric connection of the complainant bearing A/c No.X12C B581157P within two weeks from the receipt of copy of this judgment. However the parties are left to bear their own costs. Let certified copy of the judgment be sent to the parties through registered post free of costs without any delay. File be consigned to the record room. Dated: Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh 3.12.2008 Member President




......................Gulshan Prashar
......................Paramjeet singh Rai
......................Smt. Shashi Narang