DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No. 48 of 8.2.2007<br /> Decided on: 14.2.2008<br /> <br /> Manmohan Singh son of Sh.Dilitor Singh, resident of House No.5096,Phase-II,Urban Estate,Patiala through authorized attorney Sh.Manjit Singh s/o Sant Singh r/o Urban Estate,Patiala.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall Road, Patiala through its <br /> Secretary.<br /> 2. S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Bahadurgarh,<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.K.S.Pruthi, adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Sh.P.S.Walia, adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant,Manmohan Singh 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 fully detailed and prescribed 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 holding a domestic electricity connection vide a/c No.UF04/0113 at his residence Quarter No.EWS 5096,Phase-II,Urban Estate,Patiala in the name of the complainant. That the complainant had been regularly depositing the electricity consumption bills with the opposite parties and nothing is due against the complainant, except the amount of bill dated 15.2.2006 under dispute for the sum of Rs.21190/- payable by 28.12.2006 under challenge. That the average consumption of the electricity consumed by the complainant is Rs.500/-for two months. The complainant received the bill of 16.10.2006 on the basis of average consumption, which was deposited by the complainant. Earlier bill were on the basis of actual consumption. The meter of the connection is in possession of the opposite parties as the same has been installed along with other meters of the quarters in a locked steel almirah.The key of the same remains with the opposite parties. That to the surprise of the complainant a demand has been raised by the opposite parties in the bill dated 15.12.2006 which is illegal, null and void not binding upon the rights of the complainant and is liable to be set aside. The complainant never consumed the energy amounting to Rs.21190/-.That the complainant is not liable to pay demanded amount as claimed in the bill dated 15.12.2006, as the opposite parties never issued any notice for such an excessive and illegal amount, inspite of the letter dated 3.1.2007 written by the complainant to the opposite parties not any reason has been shown why there is excessive bill of such a huge amount. Rather, the opposite parties are asking the complainant to give an affidavit that he will not file any case in the court and the decision of the department will be binding upon the complainant. Till now no reason has been explained/shown to the complainant regarding excessive bill. That the opposite parties were approached and requested to issue correct bill to the complainant and not to raise the demand as per the bill dated 15.12.2006 but the opposite parties did not pay any heed, rather threatened to disconnect the electricity connection and to recover the amount forcibly, to which the opposite parties have no right or authority. That there is deficiency in the service of the opposite parties, thus the complainant is entitled to damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/-That the complainant has no other remedy except to file the present complainant.<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 bill of 16.10.2006 was on the basis of average consumption due to the fact that the reading of the meter could not be recorded due to the premises being locked. The amount in question is of the actual consumption of units. The complainant was found liable to pay the amount as per actual consumption as per the reading recorded after adjusting the amount already paid by him of the bill sent on the basis of average consumption. The complainant was duly made to understand that the bill in question is of actual consumption of electric units. It is denied that the opposite parties are asking the complainant to give an affidavit that he will not file any case in the court. The bill in question has been correctly issued as per rules and regulations of the board. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to any damages whatsoever. 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 evidence affidavit,Ex.C1 of Manjit Singh, copy of power of attorney,Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 3.1.2007, Ex.C3, copy of bill dated 15.12.2006, Ex.C4 , copy of bill dated 16.10.2006, Ex.C5, photographs, Exs.C6 to C10 and copy of meter reading report, Ex.C11.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Er.S.P.Sharma,AEE.photo copy of meter change order,Ex.R2, photo copy of M.E.Lab. report,Ex.R3, photocopy of entry from the register,Ex.R4 and copy of consumption data,Ex.R5.<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. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complainant has challenged the bill dated 15.12.2006,Ex.C4, amounting to Rs.21,190/- on the ground that the bill is illegal, null and void and that his average consumption of electricity consumed is Rs.500/- for two months. He has further contended that the averments of the complainant are false .Since the complainant has been issued bill as per actual consumption according to the reading recorded after adjusting the amount already paid by him of the bills sent on the basis of average consumption. He has further contended that the disputed bill has been issued according to the rules of the P.S.E.B.and that the complainant has failed to prove that the disputed bill is illegal or null and void.<br /> 8. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the average consumption of the electricity consumed by the complainant is Rs.500/- for two months. He has further contended that the complainant had received the bill dated 16.10.2006,Ex.C5 on the basis of average consumption which was deposited by the complainant. Earlier bills were on the basis of actual consumption. He has further contended that the meter is in possession of the opposite parties as the same has been installed along with other meters of the quarters in a locked steal almirah.The key of the same remains with the opposite parties. He has further contended that the demand raised by the opposite parties in the disputed bill dated 15.12.2006,Ex.C4, is illegal ,null and void and is liable to be setaside.The complainant never consumed the energy amounting to Rs.21,190/-.He has further contended that no reason has been explained regarding excess bill and that demanding of the excess bill amounts to deficiency in the service of the opposite parties.<br /> 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 10. The perusal of the bill,Ex.C4, dated 15.12.2006 would show that there was a consumption of 5269 units from 26.7.2006 to 29.11.2006.The bill further shows that the old reading was 1130 and the new reading was 6399.The bill,Ex.C5 dated 16.10.2006 shows the consumption as 185 units. The bill,Ex.C5, further shows that old reading was 1130.The bill further shows that no reading was taken as the premises were locked and the bill was sent on average basis. The perusal of the consumption data,Ex.R5 shows that on 26.7.2006 when the reading was taken the meter showed 930 units and when the reading was taken on 26.7.2006 it read as 1130 units. These 150 units were consumed and status of the meter shown as O.K. 29.9.2006 the meter showed old reading as 1130 and new reading was not taken and consumption was shown as 185 units and status of the meter was shown as locked. On 29.11.2006 the meter showed the old reading as 1130 units and the new reading showed 6399 units.Thus,5269 units were consumed and status of the meter was shown as OK/locked. On 29.1.2007 the old reading showed by the meter was 6399 which showed consumption of 151 units and status of the meter was OK. On 27.3.2007 the old reading of the meter was 6550 and the new reading was 6770 carrying a consumption of 157 units and status of the meter was OK.Thus, from the consumption data,Ex.R5, it is proved that the bill in dispute was issued as per actual consumption according to the reading recorded after adjusting the amount already paid by the complainant of the bills sent on the basis of average consumption. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the bill in dispute is illegal or null and void. The complainant is liable to pay the amount mentioned in the disputed bill,Ex.C4.<br /> 11. In view of our above discussion, we hold that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint merits dismissal and is dismissed accordingly. However, under the circumstances parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:14.2.2008.<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />