THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 531-14
Date of Institution : 14.10.2014
Date of Decision : 03.06.2015
Manbir Singh age 40 years S/o S. Harjinder Singh R/o Abandi Hamidpura , Byepass Naraingarh, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
The Chief Managing Director Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala service through SDO West Sub Division, Amritsar
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh.Vikram Puri,Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. Anil Sharma,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Manbir Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that for raising construction on his residential premises, he obtained temporary electric connection vide account No. TY 244 by depositing requisite security amount of Rs. 2090/- vide receipt dated 14.7.2011. According to the complainant on 21.9.2011 the electric meter got burnt and complainant intimated the opposite party and also deposited Rs. 320/- as cost of new meter and the opposite party officials assured that the meter would be replaced very soon. Complainant has alleged that after completion of construction work, he applied for permanent connection by fulfilling all the necessary formalities and the same was released to the complainant vide account No. WH44/1288. On 8.12.2011 opposite party issued notice raising a demand of Rs. 17129/- for 1700 units . On receipt of notice complainant approached the opposite party and requested them to provide him the details, but the opposite party has refused to listen to the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs. 17129/- and to refund the amount of Rs. 17129/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that temporary electric connection was installed in the name of the complainant on 15.7.2011 and the same was burnt and after that from 15.7.2011 to 8.12.2011 no bill was issued to the complainant. It was submitted that after that from 15.7.2011 to 8.12.2011 average bill for four months and 23 days on load factor for 1700 units was issued to the complainant, the detail of which is as under:
Load Hours Days x Factor
0.986 x 12 x 30 x 100% = 354.96
= 355x4 months
= 1420 units
= 280 units for 23 days
Total = 1700 units i.e. for 4 months & 23 days from 15.7.2011 to 8.12.2011
These units are calculated according to load factor as per instructions of Supply Code and Regulations of the Corporation and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of notice dated 8.12.2011 Ex.C-2, copy of bill receipt Ex.C-3, copy of another bill receipt dated 24.9.2013 Ex.C-4, copy of receipts Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6.
4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar AEE Ex.OP1, copy of application form for temporary connection Ex.OP2, copy of sale regulation Ex.OP3, copy of calculation sheet Ex.OP4, copy of PDCO Ex.OP5.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant obtained temporary electric connection from the opposite party bearing account No. TY-244 by depositing the requisite fee on 14.7.2011 and the temporary electric connection meter was installed at the site of the complainant on 15.7.2011. On 21.9.2011 the said electric meter got burnt. The complainant intimated the opposite party and also deposited Rs. 320/- vide receipt dated 22.9.2011 Ex.C-6 as cost of new meter but the opposite party did not replace the meter rather gave direct connection to the complainant. The complainant submitted that after completion of the construction, the complainant applied for permanent connection which was released to the complainant vide account No. WH44/1288 . However, the opposite issued one notice dated 9.12.2011 Ex.C-2 to the complainant raising demand of Rs. 17,129/- on account of consumption of 1700 units. The complainant approached the opposite party and requested them to provide the details or to rectify the bill. But the opposite party neither rectified the bill nor provided the details of the bill to the complainant. Further , no proper procedure was adopted by the opposite party before raising the said demand in question. However, the complainant deposited the said amount with the opposite party on 24.9.2013 and 15.10.2013 vide receipts Ex.C-4 and C-3 respectively in order to avoid disconnection of the electric connection. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the bill in question dated 8.12.2011 for Rs. 17,129/- was issued to the complainant as per rules and regulations of the opposite party. Temporary electric connection was installed in the name of complainant at his site on 15.7.2011 and the same was burnt. Resultantly from 15.7.2011 to 8.12.2011 no bill was issued to the complainant. After that from 15.7.2011 to 8.12.2011 average bill for 4 months and 23 days on load factor i.e. LDHF formula for 1700 units was issued to the complainant as detailed in the written version above. The complainant is bound to pay this amount to the opposite party. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant obtained temporary electric connection by depositing the requisite fee vide receipt dated 14.7.2011 Ex.C-5. Resultantly temporary electric connection was released to the complainant vide account No.TY 244 and the electric meter was installed at the site of the complainant on 15.7.2011. The said meter was burnt on 21.9.2011 and the complainant deposited Rs. 320/- against receipt dated 22.9.2011 Ex.C-6 as cost of new meter. Thereafter after completion of the construction, complainant applied for regular /permanent connection and the same was released vide account No.WH44/1288 to the complainant on 8.12.2011. However, no bill was issued to the complainant of the temporary connection from 15.7.2011 to 8.12.2011. The complainant has to make the payment of the electricity, consumed on the temporary electricity connection for the period from 15.7.2011 to 8.12.2011. Consequently for that period, average bill on the basis of LDHF formula, as detailed in the written version of the opposite party, for 4 months and 23 days Ex.C-2 was issued. This bill is for 1700 units for 4 months and 23 days i.e. from 15.7.2011 to 8.12.2011. These units were calculated according to load factor as per the instructions of Supply Code and Regulations of the opposite party. This bill has been issued by the opposite party as per Supply Code and Regulations of the opposite party. The complainant was bound to pay this amount to the opposite party. As such we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
9. Consequently we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
3.06.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
