DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOR`UM, BATHINDA

C.C. No.411 of 27-08-2012

Decided on : 06-11-2012

Jagjit Singh aged about 50 years S/o Bhagwan Singh, R/o Near Co-operative Bank, Rori Road, Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala, through its C.M.D.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda, through its SDO/XEN.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

For the Complainant : Sh. Gurpreet Singh, counsel for the complainant.

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

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is holding an electric connection No. B54TS160841X and an electric meter No.205033681 has been installed in his aforesaid shop. He has regularly been paying the bills so issued by the PSPCL. The above said shop of the complainant is lying closed for the last about two years and no electricity is being consumed by the complainant. The old reading as well as the new reading in the bills issued by the PSPCL for the last few months is shown as 5999 which shows that the electricity is not being consumed by the complainant and he was receiving the bills for the last few months on MMC basis. The complainant has received a bill dated 31.7.2012 from the opposite party No.2 raising a demand of Rs.800/- from him on average basis and the status of the said meter has been shown as 'D' i.e. defective. The complainant alleged that the demand raised by the opposite parties is totally wrong and illegal as neither the said meter is defective nor he is liable to pay the said amount because his aforesaid shop is lying closed and no electricity is being consumed by him in that shop. The complainant on receipt of bill in question approached opposite party No.2 and disclosed that the shop in question is lying closed and electricity has not been consumed by him due to which said meter is showing the same reading for the last few months and it is not defective in any manner, but the opposite party No.2 did not pay any heed to his request. The complainant wrote applications to the opposite party No.2 on 16.8.2012 and 17.8.2012 requesting them for correcting the bill and not to change the said meter. He also requested them to get the amount deposited from him on MMC basis after correcting the bill in question but to no effect. The officials of the opposite parties are threatening him to deposit the amount of the bill in question and also to change the said meter although the same is not defective in any manner. The complainant alleged that the impugned demand raised by the opposite parties is liable to be quashed/withdrawn and the complainant is still ready to deposit the amount with them on MMC basis. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to quash the impugned demand; correct the said bill by correcting the status of the meter 'O' from 'D' and to charge the amount on MMC basis and pay him cost and compensation.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written statement and admitted that the old reading and the new reading was noted 5999 from 4.3.2012 to 7.7.2012. It has been pleaded that there may be defect in the said meter but the bills were issued on the minimum charges basis. The meter reader gave a report of the consumption of 5999 unit from 4.3.2012 to 7.7.2012 and gave remark 'D' Code on 7.7.2012 in his meter reader book. So on the basis of 'D' Code, bill was issued on the average basis for the period from 15.6.2012 to 2.7.2012 for depositing the amount of Rs.800/-. After that the complainant has filed two complaints on 16.8.2012 and 17.8.2012 continuously before the opposite parties. On the basis of application dated 17.8.2012, the report was taken from J.E who reported that the meter is running on load. So an advice was sent to collect the bill for the payment from 15.6.2012 to 2.7.2012 on the basis of the minimum charges instead of the average basis and also an advice was sent to computer for giving the 'O' Code in the future bills which will be effected in the next bill and the advice for collecting the bill on the minimum charges has been given in the bill for the payment from 14.8.2012 to 2.9.2012. After adjusting the bill for the consumption of 57 units, the bill for the period from 14.8.2012 to 2.9.2012 was issued in minus and the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.78/- to the complainant which will be adjusted in his future bill. Thus there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

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

5. The complainant has challenged the bill dated 31-07-2012 wherein a demand of Rs. 800/- has been raised from him on average basis. Further grievances of the complainant is that the status of the meter in the said bill has been shown 'D' defective whereas his meter is not defective and the reading 5999 shown in earlier bills is due to the reason that his shop remains closed and there is no electricity consumption. The earlier bills have been issued to him on minimum charges basis.

6. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that on receipt of complaint dated 17-08-2012 of the complainant, the report was taken from JE who reported that the meter is running on load and accordingly an advice was sent to collect the bill for the payment from 15.6.2012 to 2.7.2012 on the basis of the minimum charges instead of the average basis. The advice was sent to computer for giving the 'O' Code in the future bills of the complainant which will be effected in the next bill and the advice for collecting the bill on the minimum charges has been given in the bill for the payment from 14.8.2012 to 2.9.2012. After adjusting the bill for the consumption of 57 units, the bill for the period from 14.8.2012 to 2.9.2012 was issued in minus and the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 78/- to the complainant which will be adjusted in his future bill.

7. The complainant has himself admitted in para No. 3 of his complaint that he made complaint to opposite parties on 16-08-2012 for correction in the bill in question, but without waiting for the action of the opposite parties on his complaint, he filed complaint before this Forum on 27-08-2012. The opposite parties on receipt of his complaint took the report from the J.E. and thereafter issued the advice. A perusal of bill Ex. C-11 reveals that bill dated 1-10-2012 has been issued to the complainant for Rs. -78/- with code 'C'. Thus, it seems that opposite parties have taken immediate action and redressed the grievances of the complainant before filing of this complaint. The correction in the bills has been made and the next bill of the complainant would be received by him with 'O' (OK) code.

8. In view of what has been discussed above, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record.

Pronounced

06-11-2012

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member