Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/152/2014

nirmal kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SMT Nrimal kaur

05 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.152 of 2014

                                                                           Date of institution:  12.12.2014    

                                                                         Date of decision  :   05.01.2016

Nirmal Kaur aged about 70 years wife of late Ram Singh r/o Village Badhouchhi Khurd Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

 

1. The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary/Chairman.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Chaurwala Tehsil, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sirhind Tehsil, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                                                                                                                         Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                  

Present :        Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Adv. Cl. for the complainant          

                      Sh. Sumit Gupta, Adv. Cl. for the OPs.

 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Nirmal Kaur, aged about 70 years wife of late Ram Singh r/o Village Badhouchhi Khurd Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                    The complainant is using an electric connection bearing account No. K 56KX 930166F, which was running in the name of her deceased husband Ram Singh, at village Badhouchhi Khurd for domestic purposes. The complainant is using the sanctioned load and has been depositing the consumption charges regularly. Previously the complainant filed a consumer complaint in this Forum and the same was decided on 22.07.2014 with full and final payment of Rs.4242/-, which was deposited by the complainant on 08.09.2014. After depositing the said amount nothing was due towards the complainant and the complainant is depositing the consumption charges regularly. Thereafter, the OPs issued a bill dated 30.09.2014 on average basis and they also included Rs.16,646/- and Rs.4354/- in the bill, which is false and illegal. Thereafter the OPs issued a bill dated 22.11.2014 on average basis, which included Rs.14631/- and Rs.4599/-. Both bills are illegal, null and void. The complainant approached the OPs so many times and also issued legal notice to get deposit the actual amount from the complainant but the OPs forced the complainant to deposit whole amount. No opportunity of hearing was given to the complainant before issuing the said illegal bills. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs not to recover the alleged amounts and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, physical agony and harassment being suffered by the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint the opposite parties raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has concealed true and material facts from this Forum; the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties; the complainant is stopped by its own act and conduct to file the present complaint and the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint, the OPs stated that the electric connection in question is running in the name of Ram Singh till date and Ram Singh is the consumer of the OPs. The OPs have no knowledge regarding the death of Ram Singh and nobody has applied for the change of name, so the complainant is not the consumer of the OPs. Moreover, the complainant fails to pay the regular bills. The amount charged in the bills is the consumption charges and the complainant is bound to pay the same. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of receipts Ex. C-2 and C-3, copies of bills Ex. C-4 and C-5, copy of legal notice Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered affidavit of  Er. Simranjit Singh, SDO, Ex. OP-1, consumption data Ex. OP-2 and closed the evidence.

5.         The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that previously the complainant filed a consumer complaint in this Forum and the same was decided on 22.07.2014 and complainant had deposited full and final payment of Rs.4242/- on 08.09.2014 and nothing was due towards the complainant. He further submitted that complainant had been depositing her consumption charges regularly and the same is evident from copies of receipts i.e Ex. C-2 and C-3.The ld. counsel pleaded that the OPs issued a bill dated 30.09.2014 on average basis and they also included Rs.16,646/- and Rs.4354/- in the said bills, which are false and illegal. The ld. counsel argued that the OPs also issued a bill dated 22.11.2014 on average basis, which included Rs.14631/- and Rs.4599/- which are illegal and deserves to be set aside and complainant be compensated for the deficiency of service committed by the OPs .

6.         On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has submitted that it is, well established from the consumption data chart i.e Ex.OP-2 and the statement of SDO i.e Ex.OP-1 that the complainant had been an habitual defaulter and even during the pendency of the present complaint, the complainant had not been regular in depositing the consumption charges. The ld. counsel pleaded that the present complaint filed by the complainant is a clear cut, abuse of process of law, in order to avoid payment of consumption charges.

7.         After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the submissions made by  the ld. counsel for the OPs. It is well established from the consumption data chart i.e Ex.OP-2 that the amounts charged in the bills i.e Ex.C-4 and C-5 are actual consumption charges and the OPs have not committed any deficiency in service.

8.         Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, in our opinion it has been established that the amounts charged in the bills are actual consumption charges and the OPs are entitled to recover the same by following the prescribed procedure as per the Electricity Manual. Hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merits. Parties to bear their own costs.          

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

Pronounced                                                                                        

    Dated: 05.01.2016                                                        (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                                                   

                                                                                           President 

 

                        

                                                                               (Veena Chahal)   

                                                                                        Member