BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 377 of 2015
Date of Institution: 9.6.2015
Date of Decision: 11.02.2016
Mr. Paramjeet Singh son of late Kundan Singh, VPO Sudhar Rajputan, Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib,District Amritsar, Punjab 143111 ,Mobile 94636 88443
Complainant
Versus
- Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) Butari, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) Sub Division Butari, Near Butari Railway Station Khalchiyan, Distt. Amritsar Punjab\
- Line men Incharge at Sudhar Rajputan, Punjab State Power Corpn (PSPCL) Sub Division Butari, Near Butari Rly Station, Khalchiyan District Amritsar, Punjab
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.J.S.Jaswal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Sh.Anil Sharma,Advocate
Quorum:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.
Present complaint has been filed by Paramjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that complainant was the consumer of electricity vide account vide meter No.781211 under NRS category for his shop. The complainant submitted that his meter was faulty and being misused by the lineman Incharge of the opposite party and the complainant has filed the complaint in this regard dated 24.7.2014 and 9.3.2015. Complainant has alleged that he requested the opposite party to disconnect his aforesaid electric connection vide letter dated 9.3.2015. The complainant received bill dated 2.3.2015 for Rs. 11,734/- which was highly excessive and the complainant approached the opposite party to rectify the bill, but the SDO misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite party to disconnect his electric connection and settle his bill amount by adjusting his security deposit Rs. 9750/-. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Complainant has alleged that opposite party also forced the complainant to agree to pay old default amount of Rs. 21,600/- outstanding against the electricity account of father of the complainant installed in his parents house. According to the complainant his father expired in the year 2007 and in November 2013 complainant requested the opposite party to give him a new connection in his name but they forced to pay the amount of Rs. 21600/-. The complainant deposited some amount in installments of Rs. 2000/- per month and he paid more than Rs. 35000/- i.e. Rs. 9750/- as refundable security amount, Rs. 10000/-of defaulter amount and more than Rs. 15250/- towards the excess billing amount. Opposite party sent a bill dated 4.5.2015 even after disconnection of electric connection on 11.3.2015 and also gave a request letter to the opposite party to settle his account.But even after that they did not settle the account of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to quash the amount of Rs. 21,600/- and to refund Rs. 10000/- forcibly collected by them. Opposite party be also directed to pay back Rs. 9750/- as security deposit without deducting any amount. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant deposited Rs. 9750/- as security for getting the NRS electric connection in dispute and the said NRS connection was issued to the complainant for commercial activities. The bills were being issued to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption of electricity. The complainant moved application on 24.7.2014 for checking of his electric meter. Resultantly the meter reading was checked and detail was given to the complainant. The opposite party submitted that complainant is not a good pay master of the opposite party. In November 2014, bill of MMC for Rs. 2378/- was issued to the complainant but the complainant did not make the payment. In January 2015 bill for 620 units alongwith previous bill amount Rs. 7497/- was issued to the complainant and the complainant did not make the payment. In March, 2015, bill of 512 units alongwith previous bill amount Rs. 11794/- was issued to the complainant and the complainant again did not make the payment. The complainant moved application dated 9.3.2015 for disconnecting his aforesaid NRS category connection. Resultantly the complainant was asked to deposit final bill, so that his electric connection could be disconnected and account be settled finally. But the complainant did not make any report nor he deposited any amount. As per rules and regulations of the opposite party, consumer/complainant has to deposit due amount before the disconnection of the electric supply after that electric connection in question was declared PDCO vide PDCO No. 94 dated 29.5.2014. It was admitted that complainant deposited Rs. 1500/- for getting domestic connection and the same was issued to the complainant. It was submitted that earlier in the same premises there was an electricity connection vide account No. SD75/814 in the name of Kundan Singh, which was permanently disconnected on 28.3.2009 against amount of Rs. 21592/-. It was submitted that when the complainant applied his domestic connection the same was refused by the PSPCL and complainant was asked to deposit his pending amount of his father . The complainant moved an application on 12.7.2013 that he will pay the amount of his father in installments and on his assurance domestic connection was issued to the complainant. After that complainant paid only three installments of Rs. 2000/- each on 12.7.2013, 3.8.2013 and 5.5.2014 and after that he did not pay any installment till date and Rs. 15592/- is still outstanding against the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Mohinder Rana, AEE Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.Op2 to 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 both 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 both the parties, it is clear that complainant was consumer of electricity vide account No.SD75/1091 under NRS category for his shop. The complainant submitted that his meter was faulty and being misused by the lineman Incharge, of the opposite party and the complainant has filed the complaint in this regard dated 24.7.2014 Ex.C-6 and 9.3.2015 Ex.C-2. The complainant requested the opposite party to disconnect his aforesaid electric connection vide letter dated 9.3.2015 Ex/C-2. The complainant received bill dated 2.3.2015 Ex.C-3 for Rs. 11,734/- which was highly excessive and the complainant approached the opposite party to rectify the bill, but the SDO misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant further requested the opposite party to disconnect his electric connection and settle his amount by adjusting his security deposit Rs. 9750/-. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Opposite party also forced the complainant to agree to pay old default amount of Rs. 21,600/- outstanding against the electricity account of father of the complainant installed in his parents house. The complainant also deposited some amount in that account and still Rs. 15,250/- is outstanding against that account also payable by the father of the complainant. The opposite party disconnected the aforesaid NRS category electric connection of the complainant in March 2015 . But even after that they did not settle the account of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that as per consumption data produced by the opposite party, even after the disconnection of the aforesaid electric connection of the complainant on the request of the complainant, the opposite party has shown bill of 7/2015 on average basis against the disconnected account of the complainant and all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant deposited Rs. 9750/- as security for getting the NRS electric connection in dispute and the said NRS connection was issued to the complainant for commercial activities. The bills were being issued to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption of electricity. The complainant moved application on 24.7.2014 Ex,C-6 for checking of his electric meter. Resultantly the meter reading was checked and detail was given to the complainant. The opposite party submitted that complainant is not a good pay master of the opposite party. In November 2014, bill of MMC for Rs. 2378/- was issued to the complainant but the complainant did not make the payment. In January 2015 bill for 620 units alongwith previous bill amount Rs. 7497/- was issued to the complainant and the complainant did not make the payment. In March, 2015, bill of 512 units alongwith previous bill amount Rs. 11794/- was issued to the complainant and the complainant again did not make the payment. The complainant moved application dated 9.3.2015 Ex.C-2 for disconnecting his aforesaid NRS category connection. Resultantly the complainant was asked to deposit final bill, so that his electric connection could be disconnected and account be settled finally. But the complainant did not make any report nor he deposited any amount. As per rules and regulations of the opposite party, consumer/complainant has to deposit due amount before disconnection of the electric supply. After that electric connection in question was declared PDCO vide PDCO No. 94 dated 29.5.2015. Not only this, earlier also in the same premises there was electric connection vide account No. SD 75/814 in the name of father of the complainant namely Kundan Singh which was permanently disconnected on 28.3.2009 due to non payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 21,592/- . When the complainant applied for domestic connection in the same premises, the same was refused by the opposite party and the complainant was asked to deposit his pending amount outstanding against his father. The complainant moved application to the opposite party on 12.7.2013 that he would pay the outstanding amount of his father in installments. After his assurance the domestic connection was issued to the complainant in the same premises. After that he paid 3 installments of Rs. 2000/- each on 12.7.2013, 3.8.2013 and 5.5.2014 and after deduction of the same, an amount of Rs. 15,592/- is still pending against the complainant. Under these circumstances 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 had NRS category electric connection bearing account No. SD75/1091 for running his shop for welding and repair work and for that purpose the complainant had deposited security of Rs. 9750/- as admitted by the opposite party. On 24.7.2014, the complainant moved application Ex.C-6 to the opposite party for checking of his meter. Resultantly his meter reading was checked by the officials of the opposite party and detail was given to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant moved application dated 9.3.2015 Ex.C-2 to the opposite party to disconnect the aforesaid electric connection of the complainant and to settle his claim after adjustment of security deposit Rs. 9750/-.
The complainant was not paying the bills against the aforesaid electric connection of NRS category, regularly. He was issued bill in November 2014 of minimum charges (MMC) for Rs. 2378/- but the complainant did not make the payment of the said bill. In January 2015 , bill for 620 units alongwith previous bill amount Rs. 7497/- was issued to the complainant. The complainant did not make the payment of the said bill also. Thereafter in March 2015 bill of 512 units alongwith previous bill amount Rs. 11794/- was issued to the complainant. Again the complainant did not make the payment of the said bill. So on the request of the complainant dated 9.3.2015 Ex.C-2 for disconnection of the aforesaid NRS category electric connection, the complainant was asked to first deposit the amount due/outstanding payable against that account, but the complainant did not pay the outstanding amount. Ultimately this electric connection of the complainant was declared PDCO vide PDCO No. 94 dated 29.5.2015. So the opposite party was justified in recovering the balance amount due outstanding payable by the complainant against the aforesaid NRS category electric connection as per consumption data Ex.OP2. However, after the disconnection of the aforesaid electric connection, the opposite party has shown bill of 7/2015 of 412 units on average basis against the aforesaid account payable by the complainant which is not tenable because the electric connection had already been disconnected in May, 2015. So , it is held that the opposite party is not justified in charging this amount of bill of 7/2015 on average basis from the complainant. However, opposite party is justified in charging the remaining balance amount payable by the complainant to the opposite party against the aforesaid NRS category electric connection after adjusting the security amount deposited by the complainant as per rules and regulations of the opposite party.
9. As regards the payment outstanding against account No. SD75/814 which was in the name of Kundan Singh, father of the complainant in the same premises which was permanently disconnected on 28.3.2009, the complainant himself vide his application dated 12.7.2013 admitted to pay this amount outstanding against his father. So the complainant as per his assurance is liable to pay the outstanding amount payable by his father against account No. SD75/814 in the same premises, because on his assurance of payment of the outstanding amount against account No. SD75/814, the complainant was given domestic connection in the same premises.
10. Under these circumstances and aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is disposed of with the directions to the opposite party not to charge bill of 7/2015 on average basis with “S” code from the complainant against aforesaid account No. SD75/1091 under NRS category after disconnection of the same in May 2015 vide PDCO No. 94 dated 29.5.2015. However, opposite party is entitled to recover the balance amount payable by the complainant against this account after adjusting his security amount as per rules and regulations of the opposite party. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. . Copies of the orders 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.
11.02.2016 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ (Anoop Sharma) ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
