DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 299 of 27-06-2011

Decided on : 17-10-2011

Amarjit Singh aged about 62 years S/o Ajaib Singh, R/o Village Dialpura Mirza, Tehsil Rampura District Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its M.D/CMD/Chairman.

2. A.E.E./S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Bhagta Bhaika, District Bathinda.

   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. R.D. Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is holder of two tubewell connections bearing A/c Nos. AP/16/910 and AP-16/909. He has been paying the electricity bills so issued by the opposite parties from time to time and nothing was due against him. He purchased two electric motors of 10 BHP each vide bill Nos. 307 & 308 dated 24-05-2010 for more than an amount of Rs. 32,400/- and the said motors were installed in his agricultural land. The complainant alleged that motor of 10 BHP cannot bear the load of 12 BHP and it can burn if excess load is used on it. The opposite parties have issued him memo Nos. 1289 & 1294 dated 28-06-2010 for Rs. 24,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- respectively, alleging therein that the officials of the opposite parties conducted a checking and it was found that excess load of 12.5 BHP was being used whereas the load consumed at the spot was 10 BHP. The complainant assails the said memos of the opposite parties on the ground that ; neither the checking was made in his presence nor his signatures were obtained; no notice before checking was given to the complainant; the name of the complainant is Amarjit Singh whereas the notice has been issued in the name of Amrik Singh. As per memo No. 1294 issued against electric connection No. AP-16/909 sanctioned load is 10 BHP and meter installed at the spot is also of 10 BHP. As regards memo No. 1289 of electric connection No. 16/910, the sanctioned load is 7-1/2 BHP whereas according to the opposite parties, the complainant was using excess load of 12-1/2 BHP, hence this observation of the opposite parties is incorrect. The complainant alleged that he is ready to pay excess load for 2-1/2 BHP if opposite parties are entitled to charge the same, that too after fresh inspection and issuance of fresh memo. The complainant alleged that he made many requests and personally met the opposite parties to withdraw the said memos, but to no effect. Hence, he has filed the present complaint.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and pleaded that electric connections of the complainant bearing A/c No. AP-16/909 and AP-16/910 were checked on 28-06-2010 by Sh. Ranjit Singh, SDO alongwith Ajaib Singh J.E. in routine checking. The connection bearing A/c No. AP-16/910 was sanctioned for 7.5 BHP motor whereas the complainant was found using 12.5 BHP motor for cultivation purposes. Since he was found using excess load than the sanctioned load, memo No. 1289 dated 11-10-2010 was issued to the complainant for recovery of Rs. 24,000/-. Similarly connection bearing A/c No.AP-16/909 was checked on 28-06-2010 by the aforesaid officials in routine and it was found that seals and number plate of the meter were tampered with and 12.5 BHP motor was being used. Hence, the complainant was using 2.5 BHP load in excess than the sanctioned load and accordingly memo No. 1294 dated 11-10-2010 raising a demand of Rs. 12,000/- was issued to the complainant. The opposite parties have pleaded that the aforesaid memos are legal and valid and the complainant is liable to pay the said demand.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant has got two electric connections bearing A/c No. AP-16/909 and AP-16/910 for running electric motors for cultivation of his agricultural land. He purchased two electric motors of 10 BHP vide bill Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-6 and has installed the same in his fields. The opposite parties issued him two memo Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3 raising a demand of Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively on the basis of checking dated 28-06-2010 on the ground that 12.5 BHP motors have been found running on the said connections. He submitted that neither the checking was made in the presence of the complainant nor his signatures were obtained on the checking report. The complainant does not have 12.5 BHP motors and hence the memo are illegal and are liable to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that aforesaid connections of the complainant were checked vide checking reports Ex. R-4 & Ex. R-6 and it was found that he was running electric motors of 12.5 BHP whereas his sanctioned load was 10 BHP and 7.5 BHP. Accordingly impugned memos were issued to him on account of consuming excess load than the sanctioned load.

7. A perusal of record reveals that vide Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8 the complainant has got released two electric connections and paid Rs. 2,000/- vide receipt Ex. C-7 for 10 BHP electric motor and Rs. 1500/- vide Ex. C-8 for 7.5 BHP electric motor. Vide Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-6 the complainant has purchased two electric motors of 10 BHP each. The opposite parties have pleaded that they have checked the electric connections in question of the complainant vide checking reports Ex. R-4 & Ex. R-5 and found that he was running two motors of 12.5 BHP each. The relevant portion of said checking reports reads as under :-

   Ex. R-4

   “ Master Amarjit Singh Near Drain (Kassi Wala Road) Dialpura

   OYT T/F JR Sr. No. 15105 KVA = 10 KVA

   Seals – four seals of body tampered (2 lad + 2 plastic). Number plate is also tampered.

   V-290 = 23.5 A CL=10 HP”

   Ex. R-5

   “Master Amarjit Singh S/o Ajaib Singh V. Dialpura Mirza

   ( From Gumti Road to on the road of Kassi Wala)

   T/F 10 KVAJR OYT Sr. No. 13197

   Seals – 2 lad + 2 plastic body and on number plate have been found correct.

   V=290 V 23.5 Amp CL= 1.....5 HP” (HP not legible)

   A perusal of aforesaid checking reports reveals that these are neither signed by the complainant nor any account numbers of electric connections have been mentioned on them. Moreover, as per details mentioned in the checking reports, it can be presumed that both the electric motors were of 10 BHP. In such circumstances, these incomplete reports cannot be relied upon. However, the complainant has himself admitted that he purchased two electric motors of 10 BHP each and produced copies of bills Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-6 on file. He has also produced on file receipts Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8 vide which he obtained the electric connections in question. As per Ex. C-7, the complainant has obtained two electric connections one for 10 BHP and 2^nd for 7.5 BHP whereas the complainant has been running 10 BHP motor each on the said connections. The complainant has stated in para 10 of the complaint that as regards connection No. 16/910 if the opposite parties are entitled to charge for excess load, he is ready to pay the same that too after fresh inspection and fresh demand.

8. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising the demand vide memos Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3 without any basis. Hence, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 1,000/- as cost and the impugned memos are hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh notice against electric connection bearing A/c No. 16/910 which is for 7.5 BHP, to the complainant for 2.5 BHP excess load which is being consumed by the complainant, according to rules and regulations of PSPCL.

   The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced :

17-10-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member