THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 101 of 2015

Date of Institution : 19.02.2015

Date of Decision : 5.10.2015

Sh. Prem Chand Maheshwari son of Sh. Raghbir Chand, 33E, Rattan Chand Road, The Mall, Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Principal Officer, The Mall, Patiala service through Asstt.Executive Engg.(Commercial) Civil Line Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. O/s Hall Gate, Amritsar

....Opp.party

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

Present : For the complainant : Sh. Sushil Sharma,Advocate

For the opposite party : Sh.Anil Sharma

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

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Prem Chand Maheshwari under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he got installed an electric connection bearing account No. C16GT162918N at his remises at Kothi No. 33, E Rattan Chand Road, The Mall, Amritsar. According to the complainant ever since the installation of the said electric connection , he has been making payment of all the bills regularly and nothing is due payable by the complainant to the opposite party. Complainant was shocked and surprised to receive bill dated 24.12.2014 for Rs.25130/- in which opposite party had wrongly added an amount of Rs. 17883/- under the head sundry charges without disclosing the details thereof. Complainant has alleged that no such amount was outstanding against the complainant. On receipt of bill complainant immediately approached the officials of the opposite party for correction of the bill, but opposite party refused to accept the request of the complainant. Complainant has further alleged that as per circular of the board vide memo No. 3914/4555/DB-100L dated 12.1.2007 as well as account circular No. 10/09 opposite party has no right to add any amount of arrears in the bill except the current consumption charges, but opposite party illegally added the alleged arrears in the bill. Complainant has alleged that he requested the opposite party to withdraw the impugned demand, but opposite party failed to do so. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to withdraw the said demand of Rs. 17883/- or in the alternative the same may be set-aside and to refund the amount of Rs. 17883/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 2000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the premises of the comlainant go checked by the Enforcement staff of the opposite party and during checking it was found that blue phase of the meter of the complainant was not recording consumption. The said officer directed to charge the comlainant according to rules and regulations of the PSPC Ltd. After that the account of the complainant was overhauled by the audit party vide half margin No. 672 dated 6.6.2014 and the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period from 11/2013 to 3/2014. A detailed notice vide memo No. 2190 dated 7.11.2014 was issued to the comlainant , but the complainant refused to receive the said notice. As such the amount was added in the impugned bill and there is no deficiency of service. 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-20.

4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Kuldip Kumar, AAE Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4.

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both 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 is the consumer of electricity vide account No. C16GT162918N having sanctioned load of 19 KW. The complainant alleges that he has been making payment of all the electricity bills issued by the opposite party regularly without any default. However, the complainant received bill dated 24.12.2014 vide which the opposite party claimed a sum of Rs. 25611/- in which the opposite party has added Rs. 17883/- under the head sundry charges without disclosing the details thereof. The complainant approached the opposite party and also presented copies of previous bills and receipts. But the opposite party refused to correct the bill and also to explain the details of the sundry charges. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that 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 premises of the complainant was got checked by the enforcement staff of the opposite party on 27.3.2014 and it was found that blue phase of the electricity meter of the complainant is not recording consumption. Said officer directed to charge the complainant according to rules and regulations . The account of the complainant was overhauled for the period from 11/2013 to 3/2014 vide half margin No. 672 dated 6.6.2014 Ex.OP3 and a sum of Rs. 17883/- was found due payable by the complainant. Resultantly notice was issued to the complainant vide memo No. 2190 dated 7.11.2014 Ex.OP4 asking the complainant to deposit this amount with the opposite party within 15 days from the date of this memo or to file any objections. But the complainant neither deposited this amount nor filed any objections rather he refused to receive this notice, Resultantly the opposite party added this amount in the impugned bill of the complainant dated 24.12.2014 Ex.C-2. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party has charged this amount being the actual consumption chargers of electricity made by the complainant and as per rules and regulations of the opposite party, as such 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 meter of the complainant was checked by the enforcement staff of the opposite party on 27.3.2014 and it was found that three phase meter of the complainant was not working properly because blue phase of the electricity meter of the complainant was not recording consumption. The said officer directed to charge the complainant accordingly as per report Ex.OP2. The said meter was removed from the premises of the complainant and new meter was installed as is evident from the ledger as well as consumption data produced by the opposite party. Accordingly the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period from 11/2013 to 3/2014 vide half margin No. 672 dated 6.6.2014 Ex.OP3 and a sum of Rs. 17883/- was found due payable by the complainant. Resultantly notice vide memo No. 2190 dated 7.11.2014 Ex.OP4 was issued to the complainant asking the complainant to deposit this amount with the opposite party within 15 days or to file objections, if any. But the complainant neither deposited this amount with the opposite party nor filed any objections rather he refused to receive this notice. Opposite party has, therefore, rightly charged this amount from the complainant in the bill dated 24.12.2014 Ex.C-2 as per rules and regulations of the opposite party.

9. Consequently we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant. As such the 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.

5.10.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member