DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB. //<br /> <br /> Complaint No. 148 Dt: 06/08/2007.<br /> <br /> Decided on: 01/01/ 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Jarnail Singh son of S. Munsha Singh resident of village Kotla Fazal Tehsil Bassi Pathana, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib. <br /> <br /> -----Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall Patiala through <br /> <br /> its Chairman/Secretary. <br /> <br /> 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board<br /> <br /> Sub Division, Badali Ala Singh, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.<br /> <br /> 3. The Xen Sub Division, Badali Ala Singh at Sirhind, Tehsil <br /> <br /> and Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib <br /> <br /> ------ Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Present:- Sh. P. S. Ladhar Adv. counsel for the complainant.<br /> <br /> Sh. Vinay Sood Adv. counsel for the respondents.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER:<br /> <br /> 1. Jarnail Singh has directed this complaint against Punjab State Electricity Board where in he has alleged that he has electric connection bearing A/C no. K-B-55/0455- L W for domestice purpose. It is alleged that the previous bills were varing from 1500/- to 2000/- prior to 21/5/07. The Bill dt. 21/5/07 was excessive of Rs.5000/- for which the complainant has moved an application dt. 5/4/07 to check up the meter which is running fast. He has also rquested the Opposite party to replace the said meter. It is alleged that the impugned bill dt. 19/7/07 of Rs. 8730/- is excessive and not valid. He has requested the opposite party to correct the same but to no effect and thus this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party has alleged in the preliminary objections in the reply that the complaint is not maintainable , Complaint is mis-use and abuse of the process of law which is false, freivolous and that complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and that the complaint may be dismissed. On merits it is alleged that the Bills prior to 21/5/07 was of Rs.1660/-. Complainant has moved an application dt. 5/4/07 to Opposite party no.2 to check the meter due to fast running and change the meter. However there is no complaint moved by the <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --2--<br /> <br /> complainant regarding the accuracy of the impugned bill dt. 19/7/07 which is legal and valid. They have denied the other allegations.<br /> <br /> 3. Sh. P. S. Ladhar Adv. for the complainant has tendered affidavit of Jarnail Singh complainant as Ex.C-1 dt. 3/8/07 filed by complainant and identified by me, Copy of bill dt. 19/7/07 Ex.C-2, Copy of bill dt. 21/5/07 Ex.C-3, Copy of application filed by complainant on 5/4/07 and accepted by SDO Badali Ala Singh as Ex.C-4 and closed the complainant evidence.<br /> <br /> 4. Sh. Vinay Sood Adv. for the respondent has tendered affidavit of D.S. Gurm, SDO, PSEB Sub Division Badali Ala Singh Ex.R-1, consumption data Ex.R-2 and closed the respondent evidence.<br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the record and have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties.<br /> <br /> 6. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant has domestic electricity connection. The other point of controversy is regarding the <br /> <br /> genuineness of the bill dt. 19/5/07 Ex.C-2. Complainant has also alleged in the complaint as well as in his affidavit Ex.C-1 that the impugned bill Ex.C-2 is illegal as it is excessive. Complainant has moved complaint Ex.C-4 dt. 5/4/07 that the meter of his connection is running fast and same may be changed. On the other hand opposite party has relied upon the affidavit of D. S. Gurm, SDO, PSEB where in he has alleged that complainant has not furnished the said impugned bill not he has deposited the impugned amount. Ex.R-2 is the consumption data of the connection of the complainant. Rule 110.2.1, 110.2.2 and 110.2.3 reveals that if a person wants to challenge the accuracy of the meter, he has to deposit the current bill and deposit the necessary fee but in the instant case complainant has not challenged the bill in question nor he has deposited the necessary fee. It is settled principle of law that the genuineness of the bill can not be challenged in this forum in view of the law laid down in “2005 CPJ page 32 in “SDO, Electricity & Anr. Versus B. S. Lobana” where in it has been held as under:-<br /> <br /> “Electricity Law: Jurisdiction of Forum: Dispute as to correctness of electricity meter: Instead of moving <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --3--<br /> <br /> District Forum, matter to be referred to Electrical Inspector-- Electricity Act, 1910-- Section 26(6).<br /> <br /> 7. Therefore the genuineness and accuracy of the bill can not be challenged in the forum and thus this complaint is not maintainable however complaint can challenge the same before the Dispute Settlement Committee.<br /> <br /> 8. For the foregoing reasons and discussion we dismiss the complaint. However complainant can challenge the same before the Dispute Settlement Committee if he so desires according to the law within one month from the receipt of the order. In the mean time the recovery of the said impugned amount of bill stand stayed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> 9. Copy of the order be supplied to all the parties free of cost and thereafter file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Announced:-01/01/08. <br /> <br /> (Gurdev Singh)<br /> <br /> President <br /> <br /> Distt. Consumer Forum<br /> <br /> Fatehgarh Sahib<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Sher Singh Sidhu)<br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />