Punjab

Sangrur

CC/48/2015

Balvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Nem Kumar

16 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    48

                                                Instituted on:      02.02.2015

                                                Decided on:       16.06.2015

 

Balvir Singh aged 49 years son of Jeet Singh son of Shri Amar Singh, resident of Village Bardwal, Tehsil Dhuri and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its CMD/Chairman/Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.

2.             The Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Division Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant    :       Shri Nem Kumar, Advocate.

For OPs                    :       Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Balvir Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops vide connection number L81SP5490156F with a sanctioned load of 2.72 KW only and the complainant is doing the business of diesel pumping and earns his livelihood by way of self employment.   It is stated further that the Ops installed meter number 00861 regarding the electricity connection in question.  It is further averred that the meter sustained defects and gave reading of consumption of 17053 units for billing for the period from 1.2.2014 to 1.3.2014 for 28 days and the bill was issued in the month of March, 2014. The complainant on receiving the bill in question, approached the Ops, but nothing happened.  The complainant also challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing Rs.450/- as meter challenge fee.  It is further stated that the Ops replaced the defective meter number 00861 with meter number 45731 and not notice was given to the complainant before replacing the meter.  It is further stated that thereafter the OPs issued subsequent bills and inserted the amount of Rs.1,24,211/- in the bills.  It is further stated that after installing new electricity bill the complainant received bill of 33 units of March, 2014,  21 units for May, 2014, 15 units for June, 2014, 22 units for July, 2014, 21 units for August, 2014, 31 units for September, 2014, 33 units for October, 2014, 30 units for November, 2014, as such, the complainant has alleged that the demand of 17053 raised in the disputed bill is quite illegal and without any basis.  The complainant approached the Ops so many times for withdrawal of the same, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the bill of 17053 units for the period from 1.2.2014 to 1.3.2014 and to issue correct bill and further to refund the amount of Rs.450/- as meter checking fee and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the Ops, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops by obtaining an electricity connection with a sanctioned load of 2.72 KW. It is admitted that the Ops issued a bill in the month of March, 2014 for the consumption of 17053 units for the period from 1.2.2014 to 1.3.2014 and the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  It is stated further that the complainant challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing the fee of Rs.450/-.  It is alleged further that the bill has been rightly issued on the basis of 17053 units consumption and the other allegations levelled in the complaint are denied.  It is also stated that after challenging the meter by the complainant, OP number 2 issued MCO bearing number 159/121426 dated 7.2.2014 and the same was effected on 1.4.2014 and new meter was installed. The meter under challenge not be checked in the ME laboratory Patiala because present complaint is pending before this Forum.  It is stated further that the Ops are ready to get the meter checked from the ME laboratory Sangrur in the presence of the complainant, if he so desired.  It is stated further that the Ops will not recover the disputed amount till the result of the ME laboratory Patiala.  As such any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.  

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 copies of bills, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-15 copies of receipts, Ex.C-16 copy of application, Ex.C-17 copy of draft, Ex.C-18 copy of receipt, Ex.C-19 copy of application of RTI, Ex.C-20 copy of reply, Ex.C-21 copy of consumer file of PSPCL Department, Ex.C-22 copy of MCO, Ex.C-23 copy of receipt, Ex.C-24 to Ex.C-28 copies of ledgers, Ex.C-29 affidavit, Ex.C-30 copy of identity card and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of application, Ex.Op-2 copy of affidavit, Ex.OP-3 copy of bill, Ex.OP-4 copy of MCO, Ex.OP-5 copy of report and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by getting installed an electricity connection bearing in question.  In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill for the period from 1.2.2014 to 1.3.2014 for 17053 units, as earlier he was receiving the bills for the consumption of 16 to 35 units approximately.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the bill in dispute has been issued as per the actual meter reading.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the ops that even the complainant challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing the meter challenge fee of Rs.450/- on 7.2.2014, the meter in question was checked in the ME laboratory and its accuracy was found to be quite OK.   It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Ops that the complainant is using the electricity supply for running the work shop, as such he is not a consumer of the OPs under the Act.

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and find that the complainant had obtained the electricity connection in question to run a workshop for commercial purpose.  The complainant has not produced on record anything to prove that he was running the workshop along with his family members in order to earn his livelihood.  As such, we feel that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as he obtained the electricity connection in question in order to run a workshop.  It has been held by the Hon’ble supreme Court of India, New Delhi in U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. and others versus Anis Ahmad 2013(3) CLT 227 (SC) that a person availing services for commercial purpose do not fall within the meaning of ‘consumer’ and cannot be a ‘complainant’ for the purpose of filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum.  As such, in view of the above, we find that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.

 

7.             Further it is an admitted case of the complainant that he challenged the accuracy of the old meter by depositing the requisite fee of Rs.450/- with the OPs on 7.2.2014, as such, the Ops on the same day issued MCO bearing number 159/121426 dated 7.2.2014, which was effected on 1.4.2014.  It is further contended that the complainant also gave an affidavit that whatever the results of the ME laboratory will be, the same will be acceptable to him.   As such, the OPs checked the electricity meter of the complainant in the ME laboratory and found the accuracy of the meter quite OK.  The copy of the ME laboratory report dated 25.3.2015 is on record as Ex.OP-5.  As such, it is clear on the record that the OPs issued the bill in dispute to the complainant on actual reading basis and the bill in question does not requires any interference by this Forum  in the circumstances of the present case. 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 16, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member