Punjab

Sangrur

CC/650/2015

Dhanna Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri A.S.Dullat

08 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

               

                                                Complaint No.  650

                                                Instituted on:    16.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       08.03.2016

 

Dhanna Singh aged 55 years son of Hakam Singh, resident of Village Santokhpura, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     S.D.O./Asstt. Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Sub Division Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri A.S.Dullat, Advocate.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Neeraj Kalra, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Dhanna 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 by taking an electric connection bearing account number S41SK260043F from the OPs in his name which was installed at his residence at Village Santokhpura.  It is further averred that the complainant has been paying the bills of the electricity regularly and the meter has been installed outside the premises of the complainant in the box, whose key remains with the OPs.   It has been further averred that the Ops sent an inflated bill dated 28.6.2015, wherein the Ops demanded an amount of Rs.5440/- on account of consumption charges and the consumption of electricity is shown as 0 units, as the complainant was at Australia from 17.3.2015 to 10.07.2015 and nobody remained/lived in the house of the complainant, as such alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the disputed bill dated 28.6.2015 for Rs.5440/- and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the connection in question and it has been denied that the bill is inflate done.  It is stated that the OPs sent the complainant a bill dated 8.3.2015 for Rs.468/-, which was not deposited.  Again in the month of April/2015, the officials of the Ops visited the premises of the complainant for meter reading and found that the meter of the complainant was non functional/defective as the ME seals were found broken, thereby the bill of Rs.3116/- was sent on average basis and consumption basis as compared to earlier year, but the complainant again failed to pay the bill. It is further stated that the Ops sent the bill for Rs.5440/- for consumption of 388 units including the amount of previous two bills being outstanding bills.  It is stated that the amount has been charged in view of section 21.5.2 (a) and (b) of Supply Code.  However, 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 copy of receipt, Ex.C-3 copy of bill, Ex.C-4 copy of pass port, Ex.C-5 affidavit, Ex.C-6 copy of notice dated 7.5.2015 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of MCO, Ex.OP-3 copy of report of ME laboratory, Ex.OP-4 copy of circular, Ex.OP-5 notice under section 135, Ex.OP-6 copy of application dated 7.5.2015 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and 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 using the electricity connection bearing account number S41SK260043F. In the present case, the complainant has challenged the disputed bill dated 28.6.2015 for Rs.5440/- on the ground that he did not consume any electricity as he was away to Australia from 17.3.2015 to 10.7.2015. But, the complainant has averred nothing about the notice dated 07.05.2015 whereby the Ops have raised a demand of Rs.12039/-, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5.  It is also an admitted fact that the OPs have issued this notice under section 135 of the Electricity Act, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-6. Further a bare perusal of the notice clearly reveals that the complainant was found committing theft of electricity by tampering the meter seals.  The learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint as it is a case of theft of electricity and has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. And others versus Anis Ahmad, Appeal No.5466 of 2012, decided on 1.7.2013, wherein the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred. We have also perused the averments of the complaint, version of the OPs and found that this Forum has no jurisdiction to deicide the present complaint. As such, we find that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum.  Further the OPs has also drawn our attention towards the copy of letter dated 7.5.2015, Ex.OP-6, whereby the Ops issued to the Inspector, Anti Power Theft Police Station, Patiala for lodging the FIR against the complainant on account of theft of electricity committed by the complainant. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent court of law/Forum for the redressal of his grievance, if so desired. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                March 8, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                     Member