Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/14

Gurdeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

03 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    C. C. No :                 14 of 2018

Date of Institution :     2.02.2018

Date of Decision :       3.04.2019

Gurdeep Kaur aged about 55 years w/o  late Major Singh son of Pala Singh r/o Kothe Lal Singh Wale, Chaina Road, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

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

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

              Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

   Sh Rajneesh Garg, 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 Ops to correct the bill dated 12.12.2017 for Rs.35,080/- and for further directing them to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony

cc no.-14 of 2018

suffered by complainant besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing new a/c no. 3000251901 installed in his premises in the name of Major Singh her deceased husband and after his death, complainant has been using the said connection and regular payment regarding all bills is also being made by her. Further submitted that complainant received bill dated 12.12.2017 for Rs.35,080/- for the period from 13.10.2017 to 12.12.2017 for 55 units and in this bill amount of Rs.7438/-is charged as sundry charges and remaining amount of Rs.25,884/-is shown as previous balance without giving any detail. On receiving the same, complainant visited the office of OPs and requested them to correct the said bill and on assurance of Ops that they would correct the bill, she deposited Rs.5000/-with them vide receipt   dated 13.12.2017 but later on employees of OPs visited the place of complainant and threatened her to disconnect her connection if she fails to pay the bill amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. This act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony and tension to complainant for which she has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to set aside the demand of Rs.35,080/-raised vide bill dt 12.12.2017 and for further directing them to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant

cc no.-14 of 2018

besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3                                        Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 6.02.2018, 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 took preliminary objection that they have constituted several Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the disputes between the parties, but complainant has not put his complaint before such committee and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. however, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has been irregular in making payment of due bills. Bills are being sent regularly, but she has failed in making payment of same. Amount of Rs.11,730/-is deducted on account of decision in one court case. Ld counsel has brought before the Forum copy of detail showing amount due towards complainant from 1.04.2011 till 14.05.2018. it shows all the amounts due towards her and also included the amount deposited by her. OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that all the amount is charged as per rules and regulations on account of consumption of electricity and

cc no.-14 of 2018

complainant is liable to pay the same. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

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

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld counsel for opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Kulwinder Sharma Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2  and Ex OP-3  and then, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

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 the careful perusal of record file and evidence and documents placed on record by complainant and OPs, it is observed that case of the complainant is that she received excessive bill on 12.12.2017 for Rs.35,080/-. She approached Ops and requested them to correct the bill and on assurance of Ops, she deposited Rs.5000/-with them but thereafter, OPs refused to correct the  same and threatened for disconnection, if she fails to pay the bill in time, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the contrary, Ops stressed mainly on the point

cc no.-14 of 2018

that amount charged is due towards her and she has not been paying all the bills regularly. Vide document Ex OP-2, which is copy of detail of amount charged to complainant and amount deposited by her, OPs have brought before the Forum that amount in question is due towards her and she has been irregular in making payment of due bills for the period from 1.04.2011 to 14.05.2018 and this detail also shows the balance amount due to be paid by complainant on account of consumption charges.

9                                             From the above discussion and keeping in view documents and evidence placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that complainant has not made payment of bills in time and amount in dispute is due towards her on account of consumption charges. OPs have produced sufficient evidence to prove that amount in question is due and recoverable from her and all the amount is charged as per rules. Complainant has failed to prove her case, therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated : 3.04.2019

         

(Param Pal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                           Member                           President