Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/150/2014

sunderpal goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL LTd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Sunderpal singh

30 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.150 of 2014

                                                                                                                Date of institution:  11/12/2014                                    

                                                                                                                Date of decision  :   30.05.2016

 

Sunder Paul Goyal son of Durga Charan Goyal, resident of House No.201, Sector 4-D Shastri Nagar, Mandigobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Mobile No.98140-26102.

……..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., Mandigobindgarh Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Mandigobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, 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                                            

       Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :        Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv. Cl. for the complainant            

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

 

ORDER

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                      Complainant Sunder Paul Goyal son of Durga Charan Goyal, resident of House No.201, Sector 4-D Shastri Nagar, Mandigobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, 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 was having an electric connection bearing account No.K21GF551021X, which was running in his name at his residence.  The complainant was using the said electric connection and was depositing the electricity bills regularly. The complainant got disconnected the said electric connection on 19.02.2014 as there was no need of electricity supply to him and the electric meter was deposited with the electricity department vide receipt dated 24.02.2014. Thereafter the OPs issued a bill No.216 dated 30.10.2014 for the amount of Rs.11,615/-. The said bill is illegal, null and void, without using electricity and same is liable to be set aside as the complainant never used the electricity through the said electric meter after removal of the same. The complainant approached the OPs on 11.11.2014 to enquire the matter but in vain. The OPs furnished wrong data showing consumption of electricity but they are unable to trace that where the meter is installed at present and they insist that the complainant has to deposit the dues. No opportunity of hearing was given to the complainant before issuing the said illegal bill by the OPs and they are intending and threatening to recover the said illegal amount forcibly.  The complainant has also given objections regarding the alleged bill but the OPs refused to hear the objections of the complainant. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs not to recover the alleged amount of Rs.11615/- 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 cost of litigation.

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 beyond the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, hence the same is not maintainable in its present form and is liable to be dismissed; the complainant has no legal right or cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. As regards the facts of the complaint, the OPs stated that the electric connection in question is still running in the name of complainant and the complainant is using the same but has not deposited the electricity charges regularly. As per record of the P.S.P.C.L., Sub Division Mandi Gobindgarh, the amount of Rs.12,365/-, as per the bill ledger dated 26.12.2014, is pending on the said electricity account number. It is further stated that the complainant has not filed any application before the office of OPs regarding disconnection of the above said meter connection. As per record the meter of the complainant is not disconnected and still running and the meter was not removed.  The bill in question was issued to the complainant as per meter status OK. It is further stated that the complainant moved an application before the AEE, PSPCL regarding issue of bill on actual reading and adjust the security. The application of the complainant was marked by SDO, PSPCL to Superintendent and further the Superintendent  marked this application to Ms. Poornima, Ledger Keeper and she reported on the application after seeing the ledger and given remarks that no request was made by consumer and meter was not deposited. Thereafter, the complainant took the application along with him and after that never approached the OPs in this regard.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence attested copy of bill Ex. C-1, carbon copy of letter Ex. C-2, attested copy of bill Ex. C-3, attested copy of letter Ex. C-4, attested copy of data reading Ex. C-5, his affidavit Ex.C-6 and also tendered copy of letter No.5093 dated 17.11.2015 Ex. C-7, copy of mobile No.7589512037 issued in the name of J.E. Darshan Singh, Circle Punjab, as Ex. C-8 in additional evidence and closed the evidence.  In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered affidavit of  Er. Balbir Singh, SDO, Ex. OP-1, certified copy of bill ledger Ex. OP-2, certified copy of bill dated 12.01.2016 Ex. OP-3, certified copy of ledger statement of account of the complainant Ex. OP-4, certified copy of supply code Ex. OP-5 and closed the evidence.

5.                   The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant got disconnected his electric connection on 19.02.2014 and the meter was deposited with OPs on 24.02.2014, vide application Ex. C-2, but even thereafter he received electric bill No.216 dated 30.10.2014 for an amount of Rs.11,615/-, which was illegal, null and void. The complainant had not consumed any electricity since the connection had already been disconnected. He approached OP No.2 many times to enquire about the matter but it has not been settled till today. Ld. counsel pleaded for acceptance of his complaint and the OPs be restrained from recovering the amount of Rs.11,615/- of bill No. 216 dated 30.10.2014. The OPs be directed to withdraw the said bill under dispute.

6.                   Ld. counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant had not filed any application regarding disconnection of electric connection as per record of the Sub- Division and it was still running and the meter was not removed. As per report of the Ledger Keeper, Ms. Poornima, no request was made by the consumer and the meter was not deposited, Vide Ex. C-4. That the bills to the consumer were issued on the basis of actual consumption and meter status "OK". Ld. counsel pleaded for dismissal of the complaint since there was no deficiency or negligency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.                   None of the parties submitted written arguments. Considering the application dated 19.02.2014 of the complainant Ex. C-2, submitted to OP No.2, it had been received by the official on 24.02.2014. The official whose signatures are there on letter dated 19.02.2014, was the employee of OP No.2 and official mobile number had been issued to the same employee vide Ex. C-7 and C-8, he was in service and on duty at that time. But as per another application dated 11.11.2014 submitted to the OPs Ex. C-4 the complainant claims to have returned the meter to the department on 19.02.2014, but the noting on this application by the official of the OPs reads that neither any request was received from the consumer nor the meter was deposited. In the same application, consumer had requested for the issue of the bill on the basis of actual reading and also that since his shop was closed, the bill was without reading. We are of the opinion that both the letters submitted by the complainant are self contradictory. There is no force in the pleadings of the complainant that he had submitted any application for disconnection and the meter had been deposited with the department, which is evident from the noting of the OPs on the application dated 11.11.2014, Ex.C-4.

8.                   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 there is force in the plea of Ld. counsel for the OPs. We, therefore, dismiss the complaint. Parties to bear their own costs.

9.                   The arguments on the complaint were heard on 23.05.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.    

Pronounced                                                                                       

      Dated: 30.05.2016