Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/161

Bachittar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        161

Date of Institution :  8.05.2017

Date of Decision :    25.09.2017

Bachittar Singh aged about 62 years s/o Atma Singh r/o  Bazigar Basti, Street No. 1, Opposite Baba Khetar Pal Mandir, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer DS City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd Faridkot.                                   

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh M S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to withdraw the bills issued in the name of Pritam Singh and for further directing them to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that previously in the house of complainant, connection bearing no.BR-74/0081(old), No.3000391464 (new) was running in the name of Pritam Singh and about two years ago after completing all the formalities and depositing requisite charges of said account number, complainant got disconnected the said connection from his premises and also got released a new electric connection bearing no. 3000493746 on his name which is at present running in his premises and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. Despite disconnection of old electric connection of Pritam Singh, OPs have been issuing bills to complainant in the name of Pritam Singh. connection in the name of Pritam Singh has been disconnected and there is no supply from that connection. Complainant received bill dated 2.04.2017 for Rs.1870/-in the name of Pritam Singh and on receiving the same, complainant visited the office of OP-2 and requested to withdraw the said bill and also requested them to stop issuing bills in the name of Pritam Singh, but they flatly refused to withdraw the bill, rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the said bill and prayed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 15.05.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                           On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement wherein they have admitted that old connection at the premises of complainant was in the name of Pritam Singh and new connection is in the name of Bachittar Singh the present complainant. it is asserted that when new connection bearing no.3000493746 was allotted, then Permanent Disconnection Order (PDCO) regarding old connection was required to be issued but inadvertently, it could not be done. Connection in the name of Pritam Singh was also required to be disconnected on 29.01.2015 and his account was to be closed and when this mistake came into their notice, then connection is name of Pritam Singh was disconnected vide PDCO no.100004049439 dt 7.06.2017 and excess bill prepared for period 29.01.2015 to 7.06.2017 was also refunded vide sundry charge and allowance register no.608/9215 dt 7.06.2017 and as per register Rs.2100/-were refunded. It is averred that this happened inadvertently and necessary adjustment and rectification has been made. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case.Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 6 and closed the same.

6                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Santokh Singh as Ex OP-1, document Ex OP-2 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as Ops and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

8                                            From going through the pleadings of complainant as well as OPs and through the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that two years back at his premises, electric connection was running in the name of Pritam Singh. Complainant fulfilled all formalities for disconnection of said connection and got released a new electric connection in his name and he is regularly paying all the bills for consumption to Ops and nothing is due towards him. The grievance of complainant is that though electric connection in the name of Pritam has been disconnected, even then, Ops have been issuing bills for disconnected connection in the name of Pritam Singh. On receiving the bill dt 2.04.2017 in the name of Pritam Singh, complainant approached and requested OPs to withdraw the said bill, but OPs did not pay any heed to his request, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, Ops have admitted their fault and asserted that it happened by mistake and when this mistake came into their notice, they immediately rectified the same and issued PDCO  dt 7.06.2017 in the name of Pritam Singh. As per Ops, they have made necessary adjustment vide sundry item no.608/9215 dt 7.06.2017 of their Sundry Charge and Allowance Register. They have prayed for dismissal of complaint as requisite rectification has already been made and amount of Rs.2100/-stands refunded to complainant.

9                                          From the above  discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in issuing bills for connection which has already been deducted by them and carelessness by OPs in not paying heed to requests of complainant has caused harassment and mental agony to OPs,  therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are ordered to take special care while issuing bills in future to avoid any inconvenience to complainant. Strict compliance be made in this regard. However, it is made out that grievance of complainant has already been redressed by OPs and therefore, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 25.09.2017

                                                 Member                 President                                                                     (P Singla)               (Ajit Aggarwal)