DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 250 of 17.6.2016

                                      Decided on:   30.8.2019

D.C.Bansal Industries, Village Dhablan, Nabha Road, Patiala through its Proprietor D.C.Bansal.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., (Powercom) Head Office: The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. S.D.O.,/Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (Powercom), Sub Division: Kalyan, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member      

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.J.D.Bansal,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, counsel for OPs.              

 ORDER

                                     M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by D.C.Bansal(hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holder of electricity connection vide account No.P28MS280056A with 21.96KW.This connection is installed at D.C. Farm House, Patiala. At the time of issuance of electric connection amount of Rs.19410/- was deposited by the complainant as security vide receipt No.491 dated 9.4.2012. On 1.4.2016 complainant requested to decrease the load from 21.96 to 9.80KW. He filled requisite form .OPs gave assurance to decrease the load. The complainant also sent request letters through registered post on 5.4.2016, 8.4.2016 and 12.4.2016 to decrease the load. Thereafter the OPs got deposited Rs.100/- from the complainant vide receipt No.124 dated 18.4.2016 but the OPs did not decrease the load inspite of repeated requests and letters dated 29.4.2016,10.5.2016 and 10.6.2016.The complainant has been receiving MMC bills of the connection which are minimum bills but due to non decrease of the connection complainant has received bill of 21.96 KW instead of 9.80KW which caused  financial loss of Rs.3000/-to the complainant. He has paid the bill under protest.
3. It is also alleged that the complainant has been receiving the bills of 21.96KW and the load has not been decreased. OPs have also not refunded the excess security.
4. On this background of the facts, the complainant has alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.He has suffered great inconvenience, mental agony, harassment, humiliation and mental tension. For these sufferings he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in addition to refund of excess security amount and Rs.11000/- litigation expenses as well as direction to the OPs to decrease the load.
5. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In reply the OPs raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and before this Forum; that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material information; he has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The complainant has filed false, frivolous and vexatious complaint just to harass the OPs.
6. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has electric connection but it is denied that the complainant is consumer as defined under
   Consumer Protection Act. It is further mentioned that now the sanctioned load is 9.81KW.
7. It is admitted that the complainant deposited Rs.100/- vide receipt No.124 dated 18.4.2016 and requested for decreasing of the load.
8. It is admitted that the complainant received MMC bills of the connection. As per OPs the category of the connection of the complainant was MS (Medium Industry Supply) because 21 to 100 KW comes within medium category supply . Now the complainant requested to decrease the load  to 9.81KW. The category of connection will change from MS to SP(small power) because a connection upto 20 KW comes within the SP category. Due to change of category of connection, meter of the complainant was also required to be changed. The MS connection of the complainant was disconnected on 17.6.2016 and SP connection was installed . As such new meter was replaced with old meter. The change of category or meter and reduction of load is procedural work which takes time. There are so many formalities required to be completed as per rules and regulations of the OPs. Now the load of the complainant is reduced to 9.81KW.All the other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of letter, Ex.C1, copy of undertaking, Ex.C2, copy of letter, Ex.C3, copy of receipt, Ex.C4, copy of letter, Ex.C5, copies of letters, Exs.C6,C7, copies of bills, Exs.C8,C9,C10 and copy of receipt, Ex.C11.
10. OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Harbhajan Singh, Ex.OPA, copy of exception list, Ex.OP1, copy of ledger, Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, gone through the record of the case and given careful consideration to their rival consideration.They reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleas and detailed above.
12. The complainant has pleaded that he applied for reduction of the load from 21.96KW to 9.81KW on 1.4.2016 but the complainant has also pleaded that he paid Rs.100/- as application fee on 18.4.2016. It is inferred that the complainant completed the formalities for reduction of the load on 18.4.2016.The OPs have pleaded that the load has been reduced from 21.96KW to 9.81KW on 17.6.2016.The version of the OPs is that the previous connection was falling under MS connection and the subsequent connection was to fall under SP connection. In order to change the category of the connection some formalities were required and installation of meter was also required. It is also not disputed by the complainant that some formalities are required to be completed before taking any decision of such type of applications.
13. The complainant in his application dated 29.4.2016,Ex.C5, application dated 10.5.2016,Ex.C6 has also revealed that the competent officials had conducted the checking after his application. This fact also corroborates the version of the OPs that some formalities were required to be completed. The complainant has also failed to quote any rules and regulations to show that the OPs were bound to do the needful within any time frame. Moreover, the counsel for the complainant has also admitted that now the complainant has got the connection disconnected.
14. The conclusion is that there was no unreasonable delay on the part of the OPs to do the needful on the application of the complainant. As such no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed on the part of the OPs. Resultantly the complaint is considered without merit and stands dismissed.
15.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:30.8.2019       

 B.S.Dhaliwal                         Inderjeet Kaur              M. P. Singh Pahwa

       Member                                 Member                                      President