DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No. 226 of 30.5.2007<br /> Decided on: 3.12.2007<br /> <br /> Beera aged about 50 years s/o Late Sh.Dari Ram R/o Village Faghan Majra <br /> ( Dera),District Patiala.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The <br /> Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. S.D.O.”OP” Sub-Division,P.S.E.B.Reet Kheri ,Tehsil & District<br /> Patiala.<br /> <br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur,Member<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.Amar Singh,adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Sh.C.S.Sidhu,adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH,PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant, Beera has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties mentioned in the head note of the complaint.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That the complainant is a consumer of Punjab State Electricity Board having domestic connection,A/c No.RK 38/1092 at Reet Kheri which falls within the jurisdiction of SDO,Reet Kheri.That the complainant has been paying energy bills regularly since the installation of connection and has never been a defaulter. That the complainant received an energy bill issued by the opposite party No.2 on 30.4.2007 in which Rs.6683/-have been shown as sundry charges. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 to get detail of sundry charges but the detail has not been supplied so far. That the demand has been raised arbitrarily without giving any prior notice as required under Electricity Act. That the illegal and unwarranted demand of the opposite parties has caused mental agony and great inconvenience to the complainant. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the meter was found dead stop on dated 22.3.2007 and therefore average charges were imposed as per rules and instructions of Punjab State Electricity Board. That the demand was sent as per rules and regulations of Punjab State Electricity Board. That the demand is legal and therefore no harassment was caused. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidenced his affidavit, Ex.C5, bill dated 30.4.2007, Ex.C1, bill dated 29.6.2007, Ex.C2, photo copy of bill dated 31.12.2006, Ex.C3 and photo copy of bill dated 31.8.2007, Ex.C4.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Balbir Singh SDO,Ex.R1, copy of MCO, Ex.R2 and copy of audit report,Ex.R3.<br /> 6. The parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 7. Sh.Amar Singh, adv. has argued that bill, Ex.C1, may be declared illegal and quashed on the ground that no details of Rs.6683/- under the category sundry charges and allowances in Ex.C1, have been mentioned.<br /> 8. We have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel .The perusal of the bill,Ex.C1, dated 30.4.2007 shows that an amount of Rs.6683/- has been levied under the category sundry charges and allowances ,but there is no detail of this amount mentioned in the bill. The bill,Ex.C1, further shows that status of the meter has been shown as ‘O’.The perusal of the copy of the bill,Ex.C3 also shows the status of the meter as ‘O’means OK.<br /> 9. The case of the opposite parties is that the meter was found dead stop on 22.3.2007 and therefore average charges were imposed as per rules and instructions of P.S.E.B.<br /> 10. The perusal of the record shows that there is no report on the file which could show that any checking was made on 22.3.2007 vide which the meter was found dead stop. The perusal of the copies of the bills Exs.C1, C2, C3 and C4 show the status of the meter was O.K.. There is nothing on the record on what basis the impugned demand was raised in the bill, Ex.C1 date 30.4.2007.<br /> 11. As a result, we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.1000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:3.12.2007.<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />