Punjab

Sangrur

CC/372/2015

Gurdwara Sahib Akal Parkash Sherpur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri N.S.Sahni

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    372

                                                Instituted on:      01.06.2015

                                                Decided on:       05.10.2015

 

Gurudwara Sahib Akal Parkash, Sherpur, District Sangrur through its President Gurmit Singh Jawandha.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its M.D.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sherpur-I, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri N.S.Sahni, Advocate.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

               

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurmit Singh Jawandha President Gurudwara Sahib Akal Parkash, Sherpur, 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 SV-13/357 and the complainant is aggrieved on receiving notice number 267 dated 26.2.2015, whereby the Ops have raised a demand of Rs.1,43,455/-.  It is further averred that the meter of the complainant was removed by the employees of the OPs and at that time the meter was not sealed in the card board box nor the signatures of the complainant were obtained on the same.  It is further stated that the demand has been raised as the previous meter reading was 135101 and as per the ME laboratory reading that the same was 156590, which is said to be wrong and illegal. It is further stated that after receiving the notice in question from the OPs, the complainant filed the objections on 30.3.2015 with the OP number 2, but the Ops failed to decide the same.  As such, it is stated that the demand of Rs.1,43,455/- raised by the OPs is without any basis and the same is illegal one.  It is further stated that nothing has happened despite visiting the OPs by the complainant so many times. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.1,43,455/- raised against the complainant by the OPs and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs and has been paying the bills regularly.  It is also admitted that the OPs have raised the demand of Rs.1,43,455/- vide letter number 267 dated 26.2.2015 against the complainant.  It is stated that the sanctioned load of the complainant is 8.70 KW and the meter installed in the premises of the complainant became dead and as per the report of the meter reader, the OP number 2 issued MCO number 85/60239 dated 18.2.2015 and the same was effected by the concerned JE  on 19.2.2015 in the presence of Shri Gurmit Singh and the meter was packed in the card board box.  Thereafter the meter in question was brought in the ME laboratory Sangrur by Ranjit Singh JE through store challan number 1 dated 23.2.2015 and the same was checked in the presence of Gurmit Singh and found its reading as 156590 and thus being the difference of the reading between two i.e. 135101 and 156590, the OPs have raised the demand of Rs.1,43,455/- which is said to be quite legal one.  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 letter dated 26.2.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of reply/objections dated 30.3.2015, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 copies of bills and receipts, Ex.C-6 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-9 copy of reply of legal notice, Ex.C-10 copy of resolution, Ex.C-11 copy of receipt dated 5.6.2015, Ex.C-12 copy of letter of complainant, Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-16 copies of bills and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 copy of MCO, Ex. OP/2 copy of notice dated 20.2.2015, Ex.OP-3 copy of store challan, Ex.OP-4 copy of notice dated 26.2.2015, Ex.OP-5 affidavit 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 SB-13/57 in the Gurudwara Sahib Akal Parkash, Sherpur. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the demand of Rs.1,43,455/- raised by the OPs is without any basis and the electricity to such an extent was never consumed by the complainant. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that though the electricity meter of the complainant was replaced by the OPs, but the same was never packed and sealed in a card board box nor the same was checked in the ME laboratory in the presence of the representative of the complainant consumer.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the demand of Rs.1,43,455/- has been rightly raised vide notice number 267 dated 26.2.2015, as according to the ledger the last bill was issued as per the reading 135101, whereas when the meter was checked in the ME laboratory, its reading was 156590 and the same was checked in the presence of Gurmeet Singh Jawandha, the authorised representative of the complainant. We have also perused the copy of letter number 267 dated 26.2.2015, which is on record as Ex.C-2 and it shows that the demand of Rs.1,43,455/- is on account of unbilled units of electricity to the tune of 19424 units.  Ex.C-4 is the copy of bill dated 10.01.2015 showing its reading as 135101.  Ex.OP/1 is the copy of MCO, which clearly shows that the meter in question was removed in the presence of Shri Gurmit Singh and Ex.OP/3 is the copy of ME laboratory report, which is duly signed by Shri Gurmit Singh and it is worth mentioning here that Shri Gurmit Singh has specifically signed where the consumption 156590 has been mentioned, which clearly reveals that the consumption of the electricity at the time of checking of the meter on 23.2.2015 was 156590 and the same was duly accepted by the authorised agent of the complainant, Shri Gurmit Singh.  We have also perused the affidavit of Gurmit Singh, which is on record as Ex.C-1 wherein he has stated that no meter reading was shown to him in the ME laboratory, but since Shri Gurmit Singh has signed the report of the ME laboratory under the units 156590, we are unable to accept his plea that he was not explained about the reading of 156590.  Further we have perused the affidavit of Er. Prem Singh, AE, which is on record as Ex.OP/5, wherein he has given the complete detail of the consumption of electricity, wherein it is clearly stated that there was unbilled units to the tune of 19424 for which the OPs have charged Rs.1,43,455/-, which we feel that the Ops have rightly demanded for the same and there is no deficiency in service in raising such a demand.

6.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                November 23, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member