BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/822 of 20.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          29.8.2011

1.                 Alla Singh, resident of Main Bazar, Market Sanour, Sanour,Tehsil & District Patiala, account No.P2SSN060017K.

2.                 Chanderpal Singh s/o Sh.Harbans Singh, resident of Main Bazar, Market Sanour, Sanour,Tehsil & District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainants

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary/Chairman.

2.                 The Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sanour, Tehsil& District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainants:    Smt.Kusum Lata, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          That the complainant Alla Singh is the holder of the electricity connection bearing account No. P2SSN060017K while complainant Chanderpal Singh is the tenant in the house of the complainant Alla Singh.

2.       The complainants received bill dated 14.7.2010 which included an excess amount of Rs.23580/- .They again received the bill dated 10.9.2010 for Rs.24810/- .The said bills are said to be inflated and excessive based on sundry charges. The complainant had been paying all the bills regularly and without any default.

3.       On receipt of the bills the complainant approached op no.2 and who assured the bills will be rectified in case they made the part payment and subsequently op no.2 refused to get the necessary rectification done as promised.

4.       It is further averred that op no.2 failed to get the two bills corrected despite having been approached time and again. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to rectify the bills dated 14.7.2010 and 10.9.2010; to refund the excess amount of Rs.3000/- already charged and not to charge the amount under the head sundry charges in future bills and also to award a compensation in a sum of Rs.25000/- on account of harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant at the hands of the ops.

5.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the bills dated 14.7.2010 and 10.9.2010 were issued on the basis of the actual consumption and it is denied if the same were inflated or excessive. The bill dated 14.7.2010 was for the consumption of 4443 units but the complainant had made the payment of Rs.3000/- out of the total amount of the bill and thus a sum of Rs.20580/- ( Rs.23580-3000/-) and surcharge of Rs.2045/- remained un paid, the total amount of the bill being Rs.24810/-.

6.       It is further averred that the complainant had challenged the correctness of the meter and the same was removed and replaced  in the presence of the complainant vide MCO No.101/98648 dated 16.7.2010 and the same was duly packed and sealed in a card board box which was got subsequently checked from ME Lab PSPCL vide challan no.269 dated 23.8.2010 and the same was found to be OK vide checking report no.269 dated 23.8.2010.Therefore the electricity bills issued to the complainant were based on the actual consumption recorded by the meter and the complainants are liable to pay the amount of the same. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.       In support of their case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.C1, the sworn affidavit of the complainant Alla Singh  alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 to C4 and their learned counsel closed the evidence.

8.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Parvesh Kumar,AEE of op no.2, Ex.R4 the sworn affidavit of Jaskaran Singh,AEE of M.E.Lab,PSPCL,Patiala alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R3 and their learned counsel closed the evidence.

9.       The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

10.     It is the plea taken up by the ops that the electricity meter installed at the premises of the complainant Alla Singh was replaced vide MCO No.101/98648 dated 16.7.2010 and after the same having been removed and packed into a sealed box was got checked from the M.E.Lab and the same was found to be OK.The complainant concealed the said fact from the Forum. The ops have produced in evidence,Ex.R3,the copy of the MCO  No.101/98648 dated 16.7.2010 as also,Ex.R2 the copy of the report obtained from the ME Lab. No fault having been found in the meter installed in the premises of complainant Alla Singh, it would appear that the complainants were charged for the actual consumption vide the two bills dated 14.7.2010 and 10.9.2010.

11.     Had the ops not got the meter checked by the ME Lab, the complainants would have certainly made a complaint and made an averments in the complaint that despite the complainant having challenged the correctness of the meter, the same had not been got checked by the ops from the ME Lab. In that way the complainants intentionally concealed the factum regarding the meter having been got checked by the ops from the ME Lab and the same having been found to be correct in its working. Consequently, the complainants have not approached the Forum with clean hands having suppressed the material facts from the Forum. In any case we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:29.8.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President