DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.119 of 17-03-2011 Decided on 18-07-2011
Sukhwinder Singh, aged about 28 years, son of Balbir Singh, Resident of House No.30094, Gali No.2, Gopal Nagar, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary. The XEN/SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Urban Sub Division, Multania Road, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.J.P.S.Brar, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant belongs to SC Category and he is running a Karyana Shop to earn his livelihood. Till 2008, the electricity meter of the complainant was running correctly. The opposite parties at the end of 2008, had issued two excessive bills. The complainant filed an application in the month of May, 2009 for checking the meter and for its repair and replacement. He also deposited Rs.120/- vide receipt No.57 dated 26.11.2009 as meter checking fee. Thereafter, the meter of the complainant was removed on 10.05.2010 and at that time, the meter reading was 12946 and receipt No.17640, account No.39/406 and serial No. was 243622. The new meter was installed after some days of removing the old meter. After removal of the previous meter, neither proper checking was done by the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant nor a copy of checking report has been given to the complainant. The opposite parties have issued a bill dated 03.01.2011 for a sum of Rs.63,410/- to the complainant on the basis that there is a previous balance in the account of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he has been paying all the bills, issued by the opposite parties from time to time and nothing is due against him. The complainant has neither indulged in theft of electricity nor tampered the body of the meter rather there was defect in the meter installed at the premises of the complainant. The complainant has approached the opposite parties several times and requested them to withdraw the said bill and to issue the bills on the basis of the meter reading but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and threatened him to disconnect the electricity connection. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has challenged the meter by depositing Rs.120/- on 26.11.2009. Accordingly, the meter of the complainant was removed to get it checked as per rules of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. The removed meter was checked by Sr. XEN/M.E. Division, Bathinda and on checking, it was found that the meter is OK as it was found fast just +0.58%, which is within the permissible range of +/-. Thereafter, the complainant was conveyed about the result of checking and he himself has not re-agitated the matter nor has deposited the amount of bills since August/October, 2009 continuously and an amount of Rs.63,888/- is due against the complainant upto bill dated 04/2011. On merit also, the opposite parties have pleaded that the connection in question is NRS one and is being used to earn huge profits i.e. for commercial purpose. No excessive bill has been issued to the complainant nor he complained about any such excessive bill. The opposite parties have further pleaded that since, the complainant was in arrears of bills since August/October 2009, the due amount was added in bill dated 03.01.2011. The said amount in question is not on account of tampering rather the same is on account of consumption charges. The opposite parties reserve its right to recover the due amount and in case of non-payment of amount, to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The opposite parties have submitted in their written statement on merit that the complainant has deposited the meter challenge fee in the month of November, 2009. The meter installed in the premises of the complainant had been removed as per rules and regulations of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and it was checked by Sr. Xen/M.E. Division, Bathinda and after checking, it was found that the meter is OK as it was found running fast just +0.58%, which was within in the permissible range of +/-. The complainant was conveyed about the result of checking and he himself had not re-agitated the matter nor deposited the amount of bills since August/October, 2009 and an amount of Rs.63,888/- is due against the complainant upto bill dated 04/2011. The checking was made by the competent authorities and the previous meter was also running correctly and all times, the bills have been issued as per reading noted down by the meter reader. Since the complainant was in arrears of bills, so the due amount was added in bill dated 03.01.2011. The amount in question is not on account of tampering rather the same is on account of consumption charges and the complainant had failed to deposit the amount, so the aforesaid amount becomes due towards the complainant. 6. The photocopies of bills placed on file from Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 shows that the complainant is defaulter. The bills Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-11 also shows that the complainant is defaulter. A perusal of Consumption data Ex.C-12 shows that the complainant has last deposited Rs.3,745/- on 09.10.2009, thereafter, he has not deposited even a single penny. The old meter was sent to the ME Lab which was also found OK and the meter was changed. Even then the complainant has not deposited the bill amount with the opposite parties. 7. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the complainant is defaulter in paying the bills raised by the opposite parties from time to time. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced 18.07.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
