BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 163 of 2015
Date of Institution: 18.3.2015
Date of Decision: 10.02.2016
Tarlok Singh, 62 years S/o Sh. Dalip Singh R/o 20, VPO Lopoke Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala
- Sr.XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Chogawan Sub Division, Tehsil Ajnala Distt. Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Sukaran Kalia, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Sh.N.S.Sandhu,Advocate
Quorum:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.
1. Present complaint has been filed by Tarlok Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that an electricity connection bearing account No. A36SP210028K with sanctioned load of 11.19 KW under SP category has been installed in the name of his father, who has expired on 6.12.2013 , as such the complainant is the beneficiary of the aforesaid electric connection. Complainant has alleged that he received bill dated 15.2.2015 for Rs. 93020/- in which the opposite party has charged Rs. 84,055/- under the head sundry charges. On receipt of bill complainant approached the opposite party for details of the sundry charges, but the opposite party did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant rather they threatened to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant for non payment of the aforesaid charges. Opposite party had received an amount an amount of Rs. 30000/- on 25.2.2015 under the threat of disconnection. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to withdraw the illegal demand and to refund or adjust an amount of Rs. 30000/- received under threat of disconnection. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the consumer was wrongly given adjustment from 8/2013 to 11/2013. The audit party vide half margin No. 7 dated 14.7.2014 audited the account of the consumer , as a result of which they came to the conclusion that the complainant has been wrongly given adjustment of bills issued to the consumer due to “I/I”code during 12/2013 and Code O/I and infact he was not entitled to any adjustment and as such the consumer became liable to pay Rs. 83484/- regarding which adjustment was wrongly given to the consumer . Accordingly as per report of the audit party, memo No. 2080 dated 10.9.2014 was issued to the consumer claiming the said amount of Rs. 83484/- . But the complainant failed to comply with the said notice and as such the said amount has been added in the bill under challenge. While submitting that demand raised by the opposite party is legal and valid and 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-42.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Manpreet singh Ex.OP1, copy of half margin Ex.OP2, notice Ex.OP3, consumption data Ex.OP4.
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 is the consumer of electricity vide electric connection bearing account No. A36SP210028K with sanctioned load of 11.19 KW under SP category in the name of father of the complainant, who has expired on 6.12.2013 , as such the complainant is the beneficiary of the aforesaid electric connection. The complainant submitted that he received bill dated 15.2.2015 Ex.C-24 for Rs. 93020/- in which the opposite party has charged Rs. 84,055/- under the head sundry charges. The complainant approached the opposite party for details of the sundry charges, but the opposite party did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant rather they threatened to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant for non payment of the aforesaid charges. Consequently complainant has to make payment of Rs. 30000/- on 25.2.2015 Ex.C-42. The opposite party did not rectify the aforesaid bill. 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 as per consumption data of the complainant Ex.OP4, the complainant was wrongly given adjustment from 8/2013 to 11/2013 to the tune of Rs. 94,608/- because the complainant was charged with minimum charges with “I” code due to mistake in the computer system, whereas the meter of the complainant was giving proper reading. The internal audit party of the opposite party vide half margin No.7 dated 14.7.2014 Ex.OP2 audited the account of the complainant, as a result of which opposite party came to the conclusion that complainant has been wrongly given adjustment of bills issued to the consumer due to “I” code during the period 12/2013 infact he was not entitled to any adjustment . As such taking the actual consumption of electricity made by the complainant into consideration and after adjusting the amount paid by the complainant, complainant was held liable to pay Rs. 83,484/- to the opposite party. Resultantly, memo dated 10.9.2014 Ex.OP3 was issued to the complainant to deposit this amount or to file objections, if any ; otherwise this amount shall be charged in the current consumption bill of the complainant. But the complainant neither deposited this amount nor filed any objections against this memo. So this amount was rightly charged in the current consumption bill of the complainant dated 15.2.2015 Ex.C-24. 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 complainant is the beneficiary of account No. SP21/0028K under SP category with sanctioned load 11.19KW. As per the consumption data of the complainant Ex.OP4 which is not challenged by the complainant, the complainant was wrongly given adjustment of Rs. 94,605/- from 8/2013 to 11/2013 as the minimum charges bills were issued to the complainant for this period due to “I” code, as a result of default/mistake in the computer system of the opposite party, whereas the meter of the complainant was giving proper reading as is evident from this consumption data Ex.OP4. Internal audit party of the opposite party overhauled/audited the account of the complainant vide half margin No. 7 dated 14.7.2014 Ex.OP2 and taking into consideration the actual consumption of electricity made by the complainant as well as amount of minimum charges bills paid by the complainant and the wrong adjustment given by the opposite party to the complainant in the bills of 12/2013 and 1/2014, the opposite party found that a sum of Rs. 83,484/- are liable to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party. Resultantly opposite party issued memo No. 2080 dated 10.9.2014 Ex.OP3 alongwith copy of half margin dated 14.7.2014 and asking the complainant to deposit this amount of Rs. 83484/- to the opposite party or to file objections, if any ; failing which this amount shall be recovered through current consumption bill of the complainant. But the complainant neither deposited this amount with the opposite party nor filed any objections and the opposite party charged this amount in the current consumption bill of the complainant dated 15.2.2015 Ex.C-24. Opposite party has charged this amount on the basis of actual consumption of electricity made by the complainant as per consumption data Ex.OP4 and that too after following proper procedure . Therefore, the opposite party was justified in charging this amount in the current consumption bill of the complainant Ex.C-24 dated 15.2.2015 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 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.
10.02.2016 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ (Anoop Sharma) ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
