BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No.397 of 2014 Date of Institution: 20.10.2014
Date of Decision: 21.1.2015
Jagtar Singh, aged 51 years, son of Bishan Singh, resident of village Khai Pheme Ke, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division, Jhoke Hari Har, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Jasdeep Singh Kamboj, Advocate
For opposite parties : Sh. Manjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the opposite parties have installed a domestic electric connection bearing No.M47XG410130K in the
C.C. No.397 of 2014 \\2//
name of Piara Singh son of Jai Singh, resident of village Khai Pheme Ke and the house in which the above said electric connection was installed, was purchased by the complainant along with his brothers through a registered sale deed dated 8.11.1984 and since then he along with his brothers are using the electricity from the said connection and they are paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties and nothing is due against them. Further it has been pleaded that the complainant received a bill dated 5.10.2014 for an amount of Rs.44,680/- including Rs.39,515/- as sundry charges and allowances without any notice. The electric meter was installed outside the house in a pillar box, which was duly locked by the opposite parties and the keys for the same are remained with the opposite parties. The average bill received by the complainant is Rs.1700/- to Rs.2200/-. The complainant approached the office of the opposite parties for enquiring about the said sundry charges, but the officials of the opposite parties did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant, rather they threatened the complainant that if the complainant has not made the payment, then the electric connection of the complainant shall be disconnected. Pleading deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to quash the bill dated 5.10.2014 and issue the fresh bill according to the original consumption. Further a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been claimed as
C.C. No.397 of 2014 \\3//
compensation for harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that the audit party has imposed the aforesaid amount on the complainant on the basis of the average consumption as per the report enclosed with the present written reply. The complainant was legally bound to pay the aforesaid amount to the opposite parties. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex. C-3 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence Ex.OPs-1 to Ex.OPs-4 and closed evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
5. The complainant has challenged bill dated 5.10.2014 Ex.C-2 for Rs.44680/- in which an amount of Rs.39,515/- has been included as sundry charges and allowances. The plea of the opposite parties is that the said amount has been charged at the behest of the audit party. The opposite parties have also produced copy of the audit report as Ex.OP-4 vide which it has been mentioned that the meter of the consumer bearing serial
C.C. No.397 of 2014 \\4//
No.175812 was changed vide MCO No.163/94186 dated 6.5.2014, effected on 10.5.2014 and the reading of the removed meter was 16894 units, whereas, the consumer was charged upto the reading of 11585 units and an amount of Rs.38,443/- is chargeable as difference from the consumer. But the opposite parties have neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that the alleged old meter of the consumer was removed, packed and sealed in the presence of the consumer and thereafter the same was also got checked in the M.E. Lab in the presence of the consumer. Even no copy of the alleged MCO has been placed on the file by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have also neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that they ever sent any separate notice to the consumer before raising the impugned demand in the disputed bill, as was required under Regulation No.124.1 of the Sales Regulations of the PSPCL. Therefore, the impugned demand of the opposite parties of Rs.39,515/- as sundry charges and allowances raised vide bill dated 5.10.2014 Ex.C-2 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.
6. In view of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and bill dated 5.10.2014 Ex.C-2 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to issue a fresh bill to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption. The amount paid by the complainant against the disputed bill dated 5.10.2014, if any, be refunded to the complainant. Further the
C.C. No.397 of 2014 \\5//
opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
21.1.2015 (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh) Member
