THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Complaint No. 177-14

Date of Institution : 28.3.2014

Date of Decision : 12.2.2015

Rana Ranjit Singh son of S. Harinder Pal Singh Resident of H.No. 40, A-Block, Guru Amardass Avenue, Ajnala Road, Amritsar

.....Complainant

Vs.

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Through its Chairman/M.D., The Mall, Patiala service through SDO South Sub Division, Amritsar

.....Opp.party

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

Present : For the complainant : Sh.Davinder Gujral, Adv

For the opposite party : Sh.Sudhir Kumar,Adv.

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Rana Ranjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he has purchased the property from its previous owner Smt.Gurpreet Kaur wife of S. Charanjit Singh where an electric connection bearing account No. A24MS320012N under DS category having sanctioned load of 4.44 KW. According to the complainant he has been making payments of the bills regularly without committing any default. Earlier

-2-

complainant was shocked to receive memo No. 614 dated 7.4.2011 raising a demand of Rs. 11293/- on the ground that the audit party carried out the checking and during the alleged audit, it was found that the amount of Rs. 11293/- was chargeable from the complainant. The complainant challenged this demand before this Forum and vide order of this Forum complainant had deposited Rs.5650/- as 50% of the disputed amount. The said complaint was dismissed by this Forum and after that complainant has been making payments of the bills regularly . The opposite party even did not clear the electricity bills of the complainant rather issued bill dated 12.9.2013 for Rs. 16830/- . The complainant approached the opposite party to rectify this bill but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to quash the demand of Rs. 16830/-. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that opposite party issued memo No. 614 of Rs. 11293/- and the same was challenged in this Forum vide complaint No. 948/11 which was dismissed vide order dated 11.9.2012. It was admitted that complaint deposited Rs. 5650/- as 50% of the amount of Rs. 11293/- . It was submitted tht complainant did not pay the electricity bills regularly. As per consumption chart complainant is entitled to pay amount of Rs. 8721/- after adjusting amount of Rs. 8385/- including bill issued on 13.3.2014. It was submitted tht bill of Rs. 16830/- has rightly been issued to the complainant and there is no deficiency of servive on the part of the opposite party.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A , copies of bills Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-4.

4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Balkar Singh, SDO South Sub Division Ex.OP1, calculation sheet Ex.OP2.

-3-

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels 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. A24MS320012N under DS category with sanctioned load 4.44 KW. The complainant alleges that he has been making payment of all the electricity bills to the opposite party regularly without any default. The complainant received memo No. 614 dated 7.4.2011 from the opposite party whereby the opposite party has raised a demand of Rs. 11293/- from the complainant. The complainant alleges that this demand raised by the opposite party is totally baseless as the complainant has been making payments of all the electricity bills to the opposite party regularly. Resultantly the complainant filed complaint against the opposite party in this Forum and the complainant deposited 50% of the disputed amount i.e. Rs. 5650/- vide receipt No. 397 dated 1.11.2011. However, that complaint was dismissed and the opposite party even did not clear the electricity bills of the complainant rather issued bill dated 12.9.2013 Ex.C-2 for Rs. 16830/- . The complainant approached the opposite party to rectify this bill but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant earlier filed complaint i.e. complaint No. 948/11 which was decided by this Forum vide order dated 11.9.2012 in which the complainant had challenged the same memo vide which the complainant was required to pay Rs. 11,293/- to the oppsite party and that complaint was dismissed on merits by this Forum. The complainant has again challenged the same demand raised by the opposite party of Rs. 11293/- vide memo

-4-

No. 614 dated 7.4.2014. As such this complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Further, the opposite party has rightly issued bill of Rs. 16,880/- dated 14.5.2014 a per consumption chart which included arrears of Rs. 11293/- . The complainant has not paid this amount to the opposite party. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party submitted that 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 the opposite party vide memo No. 614 dated 7.4.2011 asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 11293/- . The complainant challenged that demand raised by the opposite party vide memo dated 7.4.2011 in complaint No. 948 of 2011 which was decided on 11.9.2012 by this Forum thereby the opposite party was held justified in claiming the amount of Rs. 11293/- from the complainant. The complainant has challenged the same memo in the present complaint. As such the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

9. However, the complainant has submitted that he deposited 50% of the amount of Rs. 11293/- as per order of this Forum in the earlier complaint case in order to avoid disconnection of his electric connection i.e. Rs. 5650/- . But that amount has not been adjusted by the opposite party rather they issued bill datd 14.5.2014 for Rs. 16680/-. But the complainant could not point out that the opposite party has not adjusted 50% of Rs. 11293/- i.e demand raised by the opposite party vide memo No. 614 dated 7.4.2011. Opposite party has not claimed the amount of Rs. 11293/- through this bill Ex.C-3 dated 14.5.2014. Whereas the opposite party had already adjusted that amount in the future bills of the complainant because that case was decided by this Forum long back i.e. on 11.9.2012. The complainant failed to prove on record his averments of this complaint.

10. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties

-5-

free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

11. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

12.02.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)

Member