DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.253 of 03-06-2011 Decided on 26-08-2011
Major Singh, aged about 50 years, son of Sh. Mukand Singh, Resident of village Gill Patti, Tehsil and District Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its C.M.D. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Goniana Mandi, 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 Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Navdeep Singh, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. J.D. Nayyar, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No.B16GP-13/260L with sanctioned load of 0.44 kw and has been paying the bills regularly. The meter of the complainant was OK and it was working properly and the average consumption always remained upto Rs.500/- bio monthly. The opposite parties issued a bill dated 01.05.2011 to the complainant for a sum of Rs.11,960/- including Rs.8,119/- as Sundry Charges. The complainant has alleged that earlier, one Gurmail Kaur W/o Chand Singh who is having the electricity connection bearing A/c No.B93 GP 130/768Y, filed a complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act against the opposite parties and alleged that the electricity meter of the complainant was burnt in August, 2010 and the officials of the opposite parties had joined the wires of the said burnt meter with the electric meter of the complainant and as such, she is not liable to pay any amount demanded by the opposite parties from said Gurmail Kaur. The opposite parties submitted the reply to the said complaint that the wires of the connection of the complainant and that of the aforesaid Gurmail Kaur were inter changed with each others. As such, the opposite parties withdrew the demand raised from Gurmail Kaur and arbitrarily added the said amount in the bill of the complainant that is totally an illegal act on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties did not provide any opportunity to him of being heard before raising the said demand. The opposite parties have not mentioned in the bill as to how they have calculated the said amount. The meter of the complainant was never burnt nor the wires of his meter ever connected with the meter of the aforesaid Gurmail Kaur. The complainant has further alleged that if, the wires of the meter of the complainant were connected with the meter of Gurmail Kaur by officials of the opposite parties, the complainant cannot be held responsible for the same. The abovesaid complaint filed by Gurmail Kaur was duly contested by the present complainant on the averments that neither his meter was burnt nor he is responsible to pay any alleged amount to the opposite parties but later on, Gurmail Kaur withdrew the said complaint on 13.04.2011. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to withdraw the said demand but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw the said demand of Rs.8,119/- alongwith cost and compensation. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and admitted that a complaint had been filed by one Gurmail Kaur against the opposite parties and the said complaint No.43 of 21.01.2011 decided by this Forum on 13.04.2011. It had been pleaded by the opposite parties that as per the rules of the opposite parties No.1&2, the meter of Gurmail Kaur (complainant in that case) and the meter of Major Singh (present complainant) was fixed outside their house for which the contract was given to the contractor for fixing the meter outside the houses of the consumers but due to bonafide mistake, the contractor inadvertently connected the electricity connection of Major Singh with the meter of Gurmail Kaur and when the same came to the knowledge of the opposite parties, the wires were removed from the meter of the Gurmail Kaur and correctly attached to the meter of the Major Singh. Due to this, the amount wrongly charged from Gurmail Kaur, was refunded to her during pendency of the said complaint. Since, the said amount pertains to Major Singh, as such, the opposite parties have added the said amount of Rs.8,119/- as sundry charges in the bill, to be recovered from Major Singh. Since, the said electricity for this account had been actually consumed by Major Singh, as such, the amount has been rightly raised from the complainant-Major Singh. 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 complainant had received a bill dated 01.05.2011 for Rs.11,960/- in which, an amount of Rs.8,119/- was shown as Sundry Charges. Earlier, one Gurmail Kaur W/o Chand Singh who was holding the electricity connection bearing A/c No.B93 GP 130/768Y, filed a complaint under the 'Act' against the opposite parties and alleged that the electricity meter of the complainant was burnt in August, 2010 and the officials of the opposite parties had joined the wires of said burnt meter with the electric meter of the complainant, as such, she is not liable to pay the demanded amount raised by the opposite parties. The opposite parties submitted the reply to the said complaint that the wires of the connection of the complainant and that of the aforesaid Gurmail Kaur were exchanged with each other and wires of the connection of Gurmail Kaur were connected with the meter of the complainant and vice versa, as such, the opposite parties withdrew the demand raised against Gurmail Kaur and added in the bill of the complainant. The opposite parties did not provide any opportunity of being heard before raising the said demand. The opposite parties have not mentioned in the bill as to how they have calculated the amount. The meter of the complainant was never burnt nor the wires of his meter ever connected with the meter of the aforesaid Gurmail Kaur. If the wires of the meter of the complainant were connected with the meter of Gurmail Kaur by officials of the opposite parties, the complainant cannot be held responsible for the same. The complaint filed by Gurmail Kaur was duly contested by the present complainant on the averments that neither his meter was burnt nor he is responsible to pay any amount to the opposite parties but however, later on, Gurmail Kaur withdraw the said complaint on 13.04.2011 and the same has never been decided on merits but despite that the opposite parties imposed the recovery which he is not liable to pay. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to withdraw the said demand but to no effect. 6. The opposite parties have admitted that one complaint had been filed by Gurmail Kaur against the opposite parties and the said complaint bearing CC No.43 of 21.01.2011 decided by this Forum on merits vide order dated 13.04.2011. The detailed facts had been discussed in the said compliant, according to which, as per the rules of the opposite parties No.1&2, the meter of Gurmail Kaur (complainant in that case) and the meter of Major Singh (present complainant) was fixed outside their house for which the contract was given to the contractor for fixing the meter outside the houses of the consumers but due to bonafide mistake, the contractor inadvertently connected the electricity connection of Major Singh with the meter of Gurmail Kaur and when the same came to the knowledge of the opposite parties, the wires were removed from the meter of the Gurmail Kaur and attached correctly to the meter of the Major Singh. Due to this, the amount wrongly charged from Gurmail Kaur, was refunded to her during pendency of the said complaint. Since, the said amount pertains to Major Singh, as such, the opposite parties have added the amount of Rs.8,119/- as sundry charges in the bill to be recovered from Major Singh as the electricity for that account had been actually consumed by Major Singh. 7. The present complainant was party in the complaint filed by Gurmail Kaur u/s 12 of the C.P. Act dated 21.01.2011 but no relief was claimed by the complainant against the opposite party No.3 as she was not consumer of the opposite party No.3 and complaint vide CC No.43 dismissed qua opposite party No.3. The present complaint has been filed by Major Singh, the complainant challenged the demand of Rs.8,119/- shown in the bill dated 01.05.2011 as Sundry Charges. The opposite parties have submitted that due to bonafide mistake, the Contractor inadvertently connected the electricity connection of Major Singh with the meter of Gurmail Kaur and when the mistake came to the knowledge of the opposite parties, the same was rectified and the wires were correctly attached. 8. Major Singh-the complainant has submitted that he has been paying regular bills of the units consumed by him. As per reading of his meter prior to filing the complaint by Gurmail Kaur but when he came to know that the wires of his meter exchanged with the meter of Gurmail Kaur, he has stopped paying the bills. The opposite parties have quashed the demanded amount raised to the Gurmail Kaur and has added that amount in the bill dated 01.05.2011 of Major Singh. Although the wires exchanged due to bonafide mistake of the opposite parties yet, the complainant cannot suffer in the hands of the opposite parties due to their mistake. He had already been getting the bills of the consumption of his meter but now he has been further burdened with the consumed units of Gurmail Kaur. The Sundry Charges which has been shown in the bill of Major Singh are that of Gurmail Kaur. The fact regarding the exchange of wires were never disclosed to the complainant either by the opposite parties or by Gurmail Kaur, this came to his knowledge when he was made party to the complaint filed by Gurmail Kaur. The complainant has specifically submitted that neither his meter was burnt nor its wires were exchanged with the meter of Gurmail Kaur. The bill dated 01.05.2011 Ex.C-2 shows the status of the meter as 'O' but the payment status as defaulter. The complainant himself admitted that he stopped paying the bills as soon as the matter came to his knowledge and also submitted that he is ready to pay the bill of the consumed units which are consumed by him individually, not by Gurmail Kaur. Hence, the complainant is defaulter in paying the bills but the previous cycle of his payments shows that the consumed units were as 148, 160, 201 and 138 respectively. Therefore, the complainant is liable to pay the consumed units only but not to pay units consumed by Gurmail Kaur for which he had already got the bill and deposited regularly. Moreover, he is also ready to deposit the consumed units. The amount of Rs.8,119/- has been added on account of electricity consumed by Major Singh due to exchange of wires, the opposite parties have quashed the amount of Rs.7,570/- which was raised from Gurmail Kaur and added amount of Rs.8,119/- (which was recorded in the meter of Gurmail Kaur) in the bill of Major Singh. Hence, the opposite parties are free to recover the remaining amount alongwith consumed units. At the most, the opposite parties can recover the difference of amount i.e. Rs.8119 – 7570 = Rs.549/-. Thus, the amount recoverable from the complainant is only 549/- + consumed units of the bills for which he remained defaulter. 9. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the amount of Rs.8,119/-. The opposite parties are at liberty to charge the amount i.e. Rs.549/- from the complainant alongwith consumed units of the bills for which he remained defaulter. Compliance of this order be done 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 file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 26-08-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
