BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/841 of 23.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          8.9.2011

Jagdev Singh Dhanjal Advocate, s/o Ralla Singh, Allottee of Chamber No.432, Lawayers,Yadvendra Complex, Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2.                 Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division(P.S.E.B.) (PII)West,Patiala

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

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.K.P.Singh, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   It is averred by the complainant that he is the holder of the electricity connection No.P 11SW 650251H installed in chamber no.432 at third floor in Yadvindra Complex Lawyers’ chambers, District Courts, Patiala. He has been paying the bills of the electricity regularly.

2.       The complainant received electricity bill no.40 dated 21.7.2010 for the period 15.5.2010 to 21.7.2010 for Rs.1350/- showing the consumption of 247 units which is very excessive as the usual consumption of the complainant never exceeded 30-40 units.

3.       On receipt of the said bill, the complainant visited the office of op no.2 on 22.7.2010 and apprised him about the inflated bill in writing and also requested to correct the bill.

4.       It is further averred that at the request of the complainant the meter of the complainant was physically checked by the Meter Reader Darshan Singh. It was found that despite switching off the main switch of the chamber the meter of the complainant had still been running. One Assistant Lineman accompanied by two other members of the filed staff had also come to the spot and they opened the meter box. They disconnected the supply from the meter of the complainant and as a result the supply to chamber no.433 of Mr.Gaurav Singla was stopped and when the wire coming from meter no.65/250 of chamber no.433 of Gaurav Singla was detached, the supply to chamber no, 432 of the complainant was stopped. Thus, Gaurav Singla had consumed the electricity from the meter of the complainant and for that reason the complainant received the inflated bill. Mr.Gaurav Singla had installed an air conditioner in chamber no.433 in the month of May 2010.

5.       After the picture having become clear from the checking of the meters installed in chambers no.432 and 433, the complainant requested op no.2 to correct the bill dated 21.7.2010 as per the physical load and on the basis of the previous bills but the ops  did nothing in the matter. The complainant wrote letter dated 12.8.2010 to op no.2 who had marked the same to the SDO concerned but the same was not received by the concerned SDO and rather the same was returned to the complainant.

6.       It is further averred that because of the negligence on the part of the ops, the complainant had to deposit the charges of the electricity bill no.40 dated 21.7.2010, amounting to Rs.1350/- although he had not consumed the electricity for the said amount and describing the said act of the ops to be a deficiency of service and having  caused inconvenience and harassment  to the complainant , he approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act)  with a request to give a direction to the ops to correct the bill no.40 dated 21.7.2010; to award him the compensation in a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of physical as also the mental harassment suffered by him and further to award him the costs of Rs.3500/- of the complaint.

7.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed the written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the bill dated 21.7.2010 for Rs.1350/- was issued for the actual consumption of 247 units .The bill pertained to the months of June and July which are very hot   and during this period the consumption of electricity remains high. On the request of the complainant the ops got the meter checked and the employee of the ops found that the meter of the complainant was found working properly and found the status of the meter as OK. There was no negligence on the part of the ops. Ultimately it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8.       In support of his claim, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit, Ex.C10 alongwith the documents, Exs.C1 to C9 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

9.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence, Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Satish Kumar Gupta, SDO, West Commercial, PSPCL, Patiala and closed their evidence.

10.     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.

11.     On the one hand, the complainant has disclosed the fact in the complaint that when one Assistant Line Man accompanied by two other members of the filed staff had come to the spot and who after opening the meter box physically checked and disconnected the main supply from the meter of the complainant providing supply to the chamber no.432, supply to chamber no.433 of Mr.Gaurav Singla was stopped and when the main wire coming from meter no.65/250 of chamber no.433 of Mr.Gaurav Singla was detached the supply to chamber no.432 of the complainant was stopped and thus it is alleged that Mr.Gaurav Singla,Advocate was consuming the electricity from the supply coming from the meter of the complainant and that is why the complainant received the inflated bill in question but on the other hand he is asking for the correction of the bill in question i.e. bill no.40 dated 21.7.2010 on the basis of the previous energy consumption, which never exceeded 30-40 units bi-monthly.

12.     Instead of making a complaint against Mr.Gaurav Singla, Advocate, that he was committing theft of the energy unauthorizedly from the meter of the complainant, the complainant has approached this Forum for a direction to get the bill i.e. bill no.40 dated 21.7.2010 corrected knowing fully well that the bill had to be issued as per the actual consumption recorded by the meter.

13.     The complainant has produced in evidence,Ex.C9, the copy of the application dated 12.8.2010 moved by him to op no.2 in which in para no.5 it is alleged “ that when the wire coming from meter no.65/250 of chamber no.433 of Mr.Gaurav Singla was detached the supply of electricity of my chamber no.432 was stopped and it is found by J.E.on physical checking on 22.7.2010 that Sh.Gaurav Singla got electricity extracted from my meter no.65/251 illegally to his chamber in order to get wrongful gain to him to run his A.C. and to cause wrongful loss to the applicant to the tune of Rs.1350/- and it is appeared that this might have done by him in connivance of filed staff of your office as the key of box in which all the meters are installed remains with the filed staff of your office and I deposited the entire amount of Rs.1350/- of my bill under protest of which electricity was used by the owner of chamber no.433 illegally in order to cause wrongful loss to me to the tune of Rs.1350/-.”However, there is no evidence to show that the said application was actually submitted before op no.2. It is averred by the complainant in para no.7 of the complaint that after having moved the letter dated 22.7.2010 before op no.2 for the correction of the bill in question and nothing having been done he wrote letter dated 12.8.2010 requesting the ops to adjust/deduct the excess amount of the bill and the same was marked to SDO concerned but the same was not received by the department and returned to the complainant, meaning thereby that no such application( copy Ex.C9) was ever moved by the complainant before op no.2. In case the complainant knew it very well that the bill in question was issued on account of the unauthorized use of the electricity made by Mr.Gaurav Singla, Advocate, from his meter, the remedy available to the complainant was to proceed against Mr.Gaurav Singla in a court of law or before the ops by writing a complaint against him but he could not describe the act of the ops having issued bill no.40 dated 21.7.2010 on the basis of actual consumption to be a deficiency of service and ask for the correction of the bill on the basis of average consumption. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:8.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President

`