BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR
C.C. No. 375 of 2014 Date of Institution: 1.10.2014
Date of Decision: 21.1.2015
Mohan Lal, aged 54 years, son of Dogar Dass, resident of House No.319, Kirti Nagar, Ferozepur City, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Managing Director.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division, Ferozepur City.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Bipen Wadhawan, Advocate
For the 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 Parmod Bala was wife of the complainant, who has expired on 17.11.2001. During her life time,
C.C. No. 375 of 2014 \\2//
Parmod Bala, wife of the complainant had got electric connection bearing account No.M23FJ260908F from the opposite parties for her domestic use and she had been paying its bills regularly to the opposite parties and nothing was due towards the complainant. After the death of Parmod Bala, the complainant has been using the electric connection in question for his domestic use and he has been paying its bills to the opposite parties. Further it has been pleaded that the average of bills of the complainant was about Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/- per bill and he has already paid all the bills to the opposite parties. The complainant has received a notice bearing memo No.2599 dated 17.9.2014, vide which the opposite parties have alleged that the electric meter of the complainant was changed and audit of the account of the complainant was made and the opposite parties have directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.9220/- as sundry charges with them. After receiving the notice in question, the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them that he has already made the payment of all the bills, which were issued by them, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant approached and requested the opposite parties many a times to withdraw the notice in question, but the opposite parties have been putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to withdraw the notice in question, rather they threatened the complainant to disconnect
C.C. No. 375 of 2014 \\3//
his electric connection on account of non-payment of amount of notice in question. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to withdraw the notice in question. Further he has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment with Rs.11,000/- as litigation to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that the amount of Rs.9220/- has been rightly demanded from the complainant as per the audit report submitted by the audit party and the complainant was duly bound to pay the same. 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.OP-2 and closed evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the file.
5. The complainant has challenged Memo No.2599 dated 17.9.2014 Ex.C-2 for Rs.9220/-. The plea of the opposite parties is that the
C.C. No. 375 of 2014 \\4//
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-2 vide which it has been mentioned that reading of the removed meter of the consumer was 33049 and reading of the new meter at the time of its installation was ‘0’ and the amount of Rs.9220/- has been pointed out on account of difference of consumption of old meter as well as consumption of electricity from new meter. 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 MCO has been placed on the file by the opposite parties. Written reply of the opposite parties is complete silent regarding the alleged change of old meter and installation of new meter in the premises of the consumer. Therefore, the impugned demand of the opposite parties of Rs.9220/- pointed out by the Assistant Accounts Officer, Revenue Audit Party, City Division, Ferozepur vide Ex.OP-2 and consequently raised by the opposite parties vide Memo No.2599 dated 17.9.2014 Ex.C-2 is not justified and is liable to be quashed.
6. In view of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and Memo No.2599 dated 17.9.2014 Ex.C-2 for the impugned demand of Rs.9220/- is hereby quashed. The amount paid by the complainant against
C.C. No. 375 of 2014 \\5//
the memo dated 17.9.2014 Ex.C-2, if any, be refunded to the complainant. Further the 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
