THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 145-15

Date of Institution : 10.3.2015

Date of Decision : 4.11.2015

Sh.Mann Singh son of Sh. Buta Singh resident of A-54, New Amritsar ...Complainant

Vs.

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman/MD, The Mall, Patiala

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd through SDO Sub Division, 4/1, Code C-38, Sub Division Mall Mandi, Amritsar

....Opp.parties

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : Sh. Sarabjot Singh Gill, Advocate

For the opposite parties : Sh. Manmohit Singh,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

-2-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Mann Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is having domestic connection bearing account No. TC 570060 which has been installed at his residential premises. According to the complainant opposite party had issued last three consective bills contrary to the consumption of electricity. The opposite party had issued the excessive bills every time and the complainant had to get it corrected from the opposite party. The details of the bills are as under :-

2. Complainant has alleged that when he enquired from the opposite party, he was told by the concerned official that a new meter was issued in the name of Paramjit Singh with 8.86 KW but wrongly has been shown in the premises of the complainant . The complainant paid the abovesaid bills after the same got corrected and as such every time he has been harassed mentally as well as physically. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking

-3-

directions to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 30000/- for the harassment he has suffered .

3. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was denied that opposite party has issued three consective bills wrongly. It was submitted that if there is any wrong entry in the bills, that is not intentional or malafide but inadvertently in the concerned record by the concerned official and the same were corrected as and when the same were brought to the notice of the opposite party. It was further submitted that whatever excess amount has been added in the bill, that has been set right and in future bills, any excess amount charged from the complainant, is going to be adjusted.While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-14.

5. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Amit Deepak Bhatia, SDO Ex.OP1.

6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and the ld.counsel for the opposite parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and the ld.counsel for the opposite parties.

7. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties it is clear that complainant is the consumer of electricity

-4-

vide account No. TC 570060. The complainant submitted that opposite party issued so many excessive bills consectively contrary to the consumption of the electricity consumed by the complainant such as bill dated17.7.2014, 9.9.2014, 14.11.2014 and 12.1.2015. The complainant further alleged that when he enquiried from the officials of the opposite party, concerned official told to the complainant that a new meter was issued in the name of Paramjit Singh with sanctioned load 8.86 KW which was wrongly shown in the premises of the complainant. So the excessive billing of that meter might have been sent to the complainant. The complainant submitted that he has residential connection with sanctioned load of 3.96 KW only. Every time the complainant had to approach the opposite party's officials to get the bill corrected and make payment. The complainant submitted that he requested the opposite party so many times not to send the excessive bills to the complainant but despite that the opposite party issued excessive bills and later on corrected the same when the complainant approached the opposite party. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that if there is any wrong entry in the concerned bills as pointed out by the complainant that is not intentional or malafide but inadvertently in the concerned record by the concerned official and the same were corrected as and when the same were brought to the notice of the opposite

-5-

party. Whatever excess amount has been added in the bill that has been set right and in future bills, any excess amount charged from the complainant, is going to be adjusted. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

9. From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the opposite party issued bill dated 17.7.2014, bill dated 9.9.2014 Ex.C-2, bill dated 14.11.2014 Ex.C-5 ,bill dated 12.1.2015 Ex.C-7 and bill dated 18.3.2015 Ex.C-11, etc. All these bills were sent by the opposite party claiming excessive charges and all the time the complainant had to visit the office of the opposite party to get the bill corrected as is evident from the averments mentioned in the complaint above. No doubt the opposite party has stated that the bills of the complainant were corrected as and when the same were brought to the notice of the opposite party. All this shows that the opposite party have admitted that they issued wrong and excessive bills every time to the complainant and they corrected the same as and when the complainant pointed out the deficiency to the opposite party. The complainant had to visit to the office of the opposite party every time first to get the bill corrected and then to make the payment of the bill. No doubt the opposite party corrected the bill when the defect was pointed out by the complainant but every time the complainant has to waste his time and to shake the head of the concerned official of the opposite party every time to get the bill rectified. The plea of the

-6-

opposite party that it was not intentional or malafide but inadvertently , is not tenable because every time the complainant/consumer had to waste his time and had to visit the opposite party office to get the bill rectified. No doubt the opposite party has stated that in future there shall be no lapse . But the opposite parties were certainly in deficiency of service qua the complainant in issuing excessive/wrong bills and then rectifying the same only when the complainant approached the opposite party. So the complainant is entitled to compensation for the harassment, he has suffered due to deficiency of service, on the part of the concerned official of the opposite party. So the opposite party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 5000/- to the complainant. However, opposite party shall be at liberty to recover this amount from the concerned official who is at fault in issuing wrong bills every time to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. 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.

4.11.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member