DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No. 48 of 8-02-2012
Decided on 03-08-2012
Narinder Mohan Jindal, aged about 32 years son of Chhota Ram son of Lal Chand, resident of St. No.5/3D, Baba Farid Nagar, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala through it's Chairman/Managing Director.
Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Cantt. Sub Divisional, Bathinda.
.......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.Sanjay Goyal counsel for complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Parveen Sharma, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant applied for the temporary electricity connection for his under construction house situated in Street No.5/3D, Baba Farid Nagar Bathinda in February,2011. The opposite parties installed temporary electricity connection No.TC 10/2373 in his abovesaid residential premises. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties could not record the reading of the meter installed in his house, rather the opposite parties sent the first bill of the consumption without recording reading on minimum charges basis to the tune of Rs.819/- in the March, 2011. The complainant had paid the same. The next bill for the month of April 2011 and May, 2011 was also sent by the opposite parties on the minimum charges basis without recording the reading of the meter, the same has been paid by the complainant. The complainant had received the bill for the month of June, 2011 on reading basis and the consumption was shown as 233 units and the opposite parties issued bill for the amount of Rs.2,357/-. The complainant then contacted the opposite parties and requested them that the reading of the consumption is of 4 months, as such, only proportionate amount for the month of June, 2011 be got deposited from him and the bill be corrected accordingly, but the opposite parties refused to accept the request of the complainant. Again the complainant received the bill for the month of July, 2011 with reading as 49 units and the opposite parties included the amount of previous bill. The bill for the month of August, 2011 with the consumption as 21 units shows the sundry charges of previous bills. In the month of September, 2011, the bill for the consumption of 101 units, was sent. The opposite parties have sent the bills from October, 2011 to December, 2011 without taking the reading of the meter on minimum charges basis. The opposite parties used to include the amount of the impugned bill in all the subsequent bills, which the complainant is not liable to pay to the opposite parties. The complainant many times contacted the opposite parties and requested them to correct the bill, but to no effect. The temporary electric meter has taken away by the opposite parties in the month of January, 2012 and installed permanent electric meter. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to quash the bills of June, 2011 and January, 2012 alongwith cost and compensation.
2. The notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement. The opposite parties on the other hand pleaded that the bill of month of June, 2011 was issued to the complainant as per actual consumption but the complainant did not deposit the amount in question. The opposite parties also admitted the bill of July, 2011. The complainant has been using the connection in question and the opposite parties have issued the bill to the complainant as per the actual consumption of the complainant which became Rs.14,491/- upto January, 2012 but however the complainant deposited only a sum of Rs.2460/- with the opposite parties and after deducting the amount so deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties, there is outstanding dues of Rs.12,031/- against the complainant. The opposite parties pleaded that the complainant has issued the bill inadvertently for a sum of Rs.18,917/- instead of Rs.12,031/- and the said amount of Rs.6,866/- demanded in excess due to some clerical mistake, has already been adjusted in the account of the complainant and still there is an outstanding dues of Rs.12,031/- to the opposite parties which the opposite parties are entitled to recover. The demand of Rs.11,960/- raised by the opposite parties in the bill for the month of January, 2012 is legal and valid and the complainant is liable to pay the same. This amount of Rs.12,031/- is due against the complainant as per the actual consumption of the complainant and opposite parties are entitled to recover the same.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The complainant has submitted that he has applied for the temporary electricity connection for his under construction house. The opposite parties have sent him the bill from March, 2011 to May, 2011 without recording reading on minimum charges. They have sent Rs.819/- on March, 2011 and the bills were sent on the minimum charges basis without recording any reading of the meter in the month of June, 2011. The bill was sent for 233 units and the opposite parties issued bill for the amount of Rs.2,357/-. The complainant contacted the opposite parties and requested them that the reading of the consumption is of 4 months, as such, the consumption be bifurcated into four months and the bill for June, 2011 be recovered after deducting the bills of March, 2011 to May, 2011. The another bill that was received by the complainant for the month of July, 2011 with reading as 49 units including the amount of previous bills. The bill of August, 2011 was issued for 21 units, September, 2011 for 101 units and October, 2011 to December, 2011 were issued without recording the reading of the meter. These were issued on the minimum charges basis. All these bills so issued to the complainant shows the previous balance. The temporary electric meter of the complainant was taken away in the month of January, 2012 and installed permanent electric meter.
6. In the month of January, 2012 the opposite parties demanded Rs.11,960/-. The opposite parties submitted that all the bills have been sent to the complainant as per the actual consumption of the complainant and the amount has accumulated to Rs.14,491/- upto January, 2012 but the complainant has deposited only Rs.2460/- with the opposite parties and after deducting the amount so deposited by the complainant, there remains the outstanding dues of Rs.12,031/- against the complainant. The opposite parties further submitted that the bill of Rs.18,917/- was issued to the complainant inadvertently instead of Rs.12,031/- and the said amount of Rs.6,866/- demanded in excess due to some clerical mistake, has already been adjusted in the account and still there is an outstanding dues of Rs.12,031/- against the complainant. The demand of Rs.11,960/- raised by the opposite parties in the bill of January, 2012 is legal and valid and the complainant is liable to pay the same. This amount of Rs.12,031/- is due against the complainant as per the actual consumption of the complainant.
7. A perusal of record placed on file shows that since March, 2011 to till January, 2012, the complainant has paid the bill for the month of March, 2011 for Rs.820/-, April, 2011 for Rs.820/- and for May, 2011 for Rs.820/- and had deposited the total amount of Rs.2,460/- only thereafter he has not deposited any amount till January, 2012. As per the ledger the bill of Rs.18,917/- was issued to the complainant in which the opposite parties have mentioned in their reply as well as affidavit that the bill of Rs.18,917/- was issued inadvertently whereas the amount of Rs.12,031/- was to be charged from the complainant on account of the outstanding dues and the amount of Rs.6,866/- which has shown excess has already been adjusted by the opposite parties. All the bills have been issued to the complainant on the basis of the actual consumption.
8. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties as the complainant is himself defaulter in paying the bills. Thus, this complaint fails and hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
03-08-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
