Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/137/2014

Raj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPC LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Sh T S Dhariwal

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2014

                                                        Date of institution:  16/10/2014               

                                                          Date of decision   :  30.11.2015

Raj Singh aged about 55 years son of Sh. Sardara Singh resident of village Gadhera, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Secretary/Chairman, the Mall Patiala.
2. The XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., G.T. Road Sirhind Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. S.D.O./Assistant Executive Engineer(C) Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Badali Ala Singh District Fatehgarh Sahib.

 …..Opposite parties   

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                           

 Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member  

Present :    Sh. T.S.Dhariwal Adv.Cl. for the complainant.   

                 Sh. M.P.S.Batra, Adv.Cl. for the respondents.                           

ORDER

 Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                  Complainant, Raj Singh aged about 55 years son of Sh. Sardara Singh resident of village Gadhera, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The complainant is having electric connection bearing No. K55KB520749K installed in his house. The complainant has been paying the bills of electricity consumed by him regularly. But in the month of July/August, 2014 the complainant received a bill dated 24.07.2014 amounting to Rs.11,070/- for the month of 26.05.2014 to 24.07.2014. The complainant went to the office of OP No.3 to enquire as to how the said amount has been calculated as the complainant just 25 days before i.e. on 01.05.2014 has deposited the bill amount with OP No.3.  The official of OP No.3 told the complainant that he has not deposited the bill amount therefore the amount has been added as arrear in the current bill. The complainant showed the receipts of payment of bill to the official of the OP No.3 but they did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant and further directed the complainant to deposit the same in time otherwise  they will disconnect the electric connection of the complainant.  The complainant told the OPs that he is ready to deposit the bill amount if the amount illegally added by the OPs as arrears is deducted from the bill amount. But the officials of the OPs did not listen to the genuine request of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs  to deduct the amount from the bill which has been illegally or inadvertently added by them and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages/compensation for unwanted litigation and for mental and physical harassment suffered by him.

3.               The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint the OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that present complaint is beyond the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, hence the same is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same is misused and abused the process of law and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint, the OPs stated that as per record of the PSPCL Sub Division Badali Ala Singh, the official of the PSPCL conducted proper checking, vide checking report, page No.7/540 dated 01.03.2014, regarding the electric connection and found that previously the electric connection bearing account No.KB52/1045 was running in the name of Jit Singh son of Sardara Singh in the same premises, where the electric connection  No. KB 52/749 is running in the name of complainant. The previous electric connection bearing account No. KB 52/1045 was disconnected  by the OPs vide TDCO No.39/50214 due to non deposit of consumption charges of Rs.17,145/-. As per the rules, regulations and procedure of the PSPCL, the outstanding amount of the previous electric connection was shifted to the electric connection of the complainant as the above said connections are/were running in the same premises. The amount of arrears is correctly charged by the OPs, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.               In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, attested copy of receipt dated 01.05.2014 Ex. C-2, attested copy of bill dated 14.12.2013 Ex. C-3, attested copy of bill dated 24.07.2014 Ex. C-4 and attested copy of bill dated 26.09.2014 as Ex. C-5. No other evidence is led by the complainant despite so many opportunities. Hence his evidence was closed by order. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Er. Lakhwinder Singh, SDO, Ex. OP-1, attested copy of TDCO Ex. OP-2, attested copy of checking report Ex. OP-3, attested copy of sundry charge register Ex. OP-4 and closed the evidence.  

5.               The Ld. counsel for complainant argued that an amount of Rs.11,070/- demanded by the OPs is illegal, unjustified and uncalled for.  This demand of OP be declared null and void since he had been depositing the payment of the bills regularly and in time as is evident from Ex. C-2, vide which he had deposited the latest bill amount on 01.05.2014 and there was no outstanding amount and an amount of Rs.11,070/- was added in his bill dated 24.07.2014 as sundry charges.  The Ld. counsel pleaded for the acceptance of his complaint.

6.               On the other hand the Ld. counsel for the OPs stated that there was no illegality or deficiency in service on its part. The amount of Rs.11,070/- had legally been added in his bill since both the connections bearing account No.KB52/1045 and KB52 0749K were running in the same premises.

7.               After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments, we find that it needs elaborate evidence to prove their contentions. Parties were given many opportunities for compromise on their request but it could not be effected.  The complainant placed a photocopy of the bill dated 26.05.2011 of account No. KB52/1045, which is in the name of Mr. Jit Singh son of Sardara Singh, village Gadhera, Sub Division Badali Ala Singh having the same address as that of the complainant. It may be presumed from this bill that the complainant and his brother, both of them are residing in the same premises. It can only be proved through cross examination etc. The Indian Evidence Act is not fully applicable in the proceedings of Consumer Forum.  This bill dated 26.05.2011 has  also not been exhibited. The complaint is therefore, disposed of with the direction to the complainant to approach the appropriate court of law if so advised for redressal of his grievance.

8.                Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:30.11.2015                                                           (A.P.S.Rajput)               

                                                                                            President

 

(A.B. Aggarwal)

Member