DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 124 of 29.3.2019

                                      Decided on:             1.9.2020

Bhupinder Singh 11, Aarti Complex Opp. T.B.Hospital, Patiala (Pb.)

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. PSPCL Head Office, Patiala through its Chairman cum M.D.
2. Sub Division West Commercial PSPCL D.C.W. Road Office, Patiala(Pb) through its S.D.O.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

For the complainant:    Sh.Bhupinder Singh, complainant in person.

For OPs:                        Ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Bhupinder Singh  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against PSPCL and another(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. Briefly  stated the case of the complainant is that he is the consumer of the OPs having using electricity connection at his above said address having consumer No.P11SW63 and contract A/c No.3003317809. He is using the premises to store Ayurvedic medicines to earn his livelihood being self employed person.
3. It is stated that the meter was installed outside the premises of the complainant. The meter used by the complainant was got damaged in the month of August,2018 due to heavy rains and hailstorm. The complainant made request on 11.9.2028 vide receipt No.1722 for changing the meter. Again another application was filed for change of the meter on 13.11.2018 vide receipt No.2053 in receipt register  of the OPs but the OPs did not do so with the pretext that single phase meter is not available. The complainant received bill dated 29.8.2018 and paid Rs.4718/- to keep his connection in running condition and the same was to be adjusted in future bills.
4. It is further submitted that now a bill dated 28.2.2019 for Rs.19500/- has been sent by the OPs. The OPs disconnected the electricity supply to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
5. On this background of the facts, the complainant filed this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to restore the connection immediately; only the minimum bill should be charged for the duration of not changing the meter; to Rs.one lac for causing mental and physical harassment to him. Hence this complaint.
6. Upon notice the OPs appeared through Sh.Jasdeep Singh Sidhu,Advocate. Thereafter case was adjourned for filing written version alongwith documents. But none appeared and OPs were proceeded against ex-parte.
7. In ex-parte evidence, the complainant tendered in evidence  his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 copy of photographs of the meter installed outside the premises, Ex.C2 copy of letter for change of meter, Ex.C3 copy of application dated 13.11.2018,Ex.C4 copy of bill dated 29.8.2018, Ex.C5 copy of bill dated 28.2.2019 for Rs.19,500/- ,Ex/.C6 to C10 copies of electricity bills,Ex.C11 copy of receipt and closed the evidence.
8. The complainant filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. In rebuttal no evidence is lead as the OPs were proceeded against exparte. In exparte evidence the complainant tendered his evidence, Ex.CA wherein he has deposed in support of his complaint,Ex.C1 is the photograph of the meter,Ex.C2 is the representation written to the OPs by the complainant, Ex.C3 is the another letter  regarding dead meter being not changed by the OPs,Exs.C4 to C10 are the electricity bills in question.
10. Admittedly as per the version of the complainant, the electricity meter was installed outside the his premises and due to heavy rain the meter damaged. Many requests were sent to the OPs to change the meter in question but was not changed. After that a bill of Rs.4718/- was sent to the complainant. Another bill was sent to the complainant. Now admittedly the connection has been disconnected.
11. Sh.Jasdeep Singh Sidhu, appeared on behalf of the OPs on 12.4.2019 and after that case was adjourned for filing written version alongwith documents. But thereafter none appeared on behalf of the OPs and OPs were accordingly proceeded against exparte. There is no evidence on the file in rebuttal to the evidence of the complainant.
12. Admittedly as the meter was damaged and was not changed despite requests made by the complainant and there is no evidence on file in rebuttal to the evidence of the complainant, therefore the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to sent the latest bill taking average of three years . The complainant is also held entitled to Rs.5000/- as costs to be paid by the OPs to him. After deposit of the average bill by the complainant, the connection be restored by the OPs immediately.

Compliance of the orderbe made by the OPs within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order .     

ANNOUNCED

DATED:1.9.2020         

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President