Harjinder Pal Singh filed a consumer case on 20 Apr 2023 against PSPCL in the Fatehgarh Sahib Consumer Court. The case no is RBT/CC/449/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 09 May 2023.
Punjab
Fatehgarh Sahib
RBT/CC/449/2018
Harjinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)
Versus
PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)
Vishal Gautam
20 Apr 2023
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB.
RBT No.
:
CC/449/2018
Consumer Complaint No.
:
RBT/CC/449/2018
Date of Institution
:
13.04.2018
Date of Decision
:
20.04.2023
Harjnder Pal Singh, son of Shri Nasib Singh, aged 41 years, R/o Village and Post Office Sohana, Tehsil and Distt. SAS Nagar- Mohali, (Punjab)
…………....Complainants
Versus
The Sub Divisional Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub-Division Sohana, Industrial Area, Phase-VII, S.A.S.Nagar-Mohali.
..………....... Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986(Old)
Quorum
Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, President
Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member
Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member
Present: Sh. Nasib Singh, Special Power of Attorney of complainant.
Sh. Pankaj Sharma, counsel for OP.
The complaint has been filed against the OP (opposite party), Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986(old) alleging deficiency in service with the prayer for giving direction to the OP to withdraw the wrong bills of excess amount and to refund excess amount recovered from the complainant , to correct/revise the impugned bill and to grant him Rs.90,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment .
The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant is a consumer of OP and getting supply of electricity service through electricity meter installed at his house by the OP. The complainant had regularly paid his electricity bill raised by the OP. The OP raised the impugned electricity connection charges bill dated 20.11.2017 for the period from 6.7.2017 to 20.11.2017 amounting to Rs.11,320/-. The total consumption mentioned that as 1658 units in the said electricity bill. The impugned bill is not as per the tariff rates prescribed under the regulations. The complainant has deposited whole amount Rs.11,320/- raised by the OP in the impugned bill under protest without prejudice to his legal rights , vide receipt dated 28.11.2017. The complainant again received the impugned electricity consumption charges bill dated 19.1.2018 in which the total consumption of electricity supply was shown as 2107 units for the period from 15.11.2017 to 19.1.2018. Total bill payable by the complainant is shown as zero because the OP has already charged excess amount of 11320/- in the impugned bill dated 20.11.2017. The complainant has made written complaint dated 12.3.2018 to the OP and sent the same through registered Post with request to explain the status regarding the issuance of wrong bill. The complainant than received the impugned electricity consumption charges bill dated 17.3.2018 raised by the OP for the period from 15.11.2017 to 12.3.2018 in which total consumption was shown as 2538 units and total payable amount as Rs.9860/-. The figure of Rs.3768/- is shown as adjustment which was not explained by the OP . The complainant had no other option but to deposit the aforesaid amount under protest , hence this complaint.
Notice of the complaint was given to the OP through registered Post, OP appeared through his Counsel and filed written version.
The complaint has been contested by the OP, filed written version ,raised preliminary objections. The complainant was issued first bill on 15.11.2017 of 15 units for 126 days amounting to Rs.930/- , as per SAP record of PSPCL. The physical reading of the meter for the said duration was 1658 units. It is correct that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.11320/- , but after that in the next bill dated 22.1.2018 the consumption was shown as 624 units and the previous excess amount of Rs.10390/- was adjusted and credited. In the next bill dated 17.3.2018 the meter status was shown as OK and all the excess amount paid by the complainant had been adjusted by the SAP as per consumption of the complainant in his electricity meter. The OP has to act and conduct as per rules and regulations framed by PSPCL. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP and prayer for dismissal of complaint with cost has been made.
The complainant in support of their complaint tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of documents i.e bills dated 20.11.2017 of Rs.11320/- Ex.C1, Payment receipt dated 28.11.2017 EX.C2 , bill dated 19.1.2018 of Rs.0/- Ex.C3, Complaint of excess bill dated 12.3.2018 Ex.C4, Bill dated 17.3.2018 of Rs.9860/- Ex.C5. In rebuttal the OP tendered reply in shape of affidavit Ex.OP1/1, bill dated 15.11.2017 of amount Rs.930/- for the period from 6.3.2017 to 15.11.2017 i.e for 126 days Ex.OP1 , bill dated 22.1.2018 of Rs.0 Ex.OP3, bill dated 17.3.2018 of Rs.9970/- Ex.OP3 , electricity consumption data is Ex.OP4, Payment details (two pages) of the complainant Ex.OP5, and closed their evidence.
We have perused the complaint and heard counsel for the parties and gone through the file. The position emerges as under;-
Admittedly, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.C1 bill dated 20.11.2017, which is from 6.7.2017 to 20.11.2017 i.e of 130 days , for 1658 units and the total amount of bill is Rs.11320/-. The complainant deposited the amount on 28.11.2017 as proved by Ex.C2. Further vide Ex.C3 bill dated 19.1.2018 has been placed which is from 15.11.2017 to 19.1.2018 for 65 days and for 2107 units . In this bill the complainant has been given credit of Rs.10,390/- and the total payable amount is Zero. Vide Ex.C5 the complainant has placed on record bill dated 17.3.2018 which is from 15.11.2017 to 17.3.2018 i.e for 122 days and for 2538 units . In this bill also the complainant is given credit Rs.5850/- and total payable amount is 9860/-.
From the above Exhibited evidence by complainant and OP, it is inferred that OP had issued the first bill on 15.11.2017 which is from 6.7.2017 to 15.11.2017, only of 15 units for 126 days amounting to Rs.930/- vide Ex.OP1. The complainant has placed bill dated 20.11.2017 vide Ex.C1 which is for the period from 6.7.2017 to 20.11.2017 for consumption of 1658 units . The total payable amount of this bill is Rs.11320/-. The complainant vide Ex.C2 proved to have deposited Rs.11,320/- on 28.11.2017 against the said bill. The amount deposited by the complainant vide Ex.C2 has been adjusted in the bill dated 22.1.2018 vide Ex.OP2 and this bill had zero payable amount. The OP vide Ex.OP3 has proved bill dated 17.3.2018 which is from 15.11.2017 to 17.3.2018 i.e for 122 days. In this bill also credit of Rs.10,319/- has been given to the complainant . The Ex.OP1, Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3 prove that the amount deposited by the complainant vide Ex.C2 has been adjusted in the bills dated 22.1.2018 and 17.3.2018. The amounts refunded by OP are also appearing in the bills placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C3 and Ex.C5. Moreover the special POA for complainant during arguments could not point out any amount which has been wrongly charged to complainant and has not been adjusted /refunded by the OP.
In view of the above discussion and inference, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and the OPs as per rules. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to pandemic of Covid-19. File be returned back to District Consumer Commission , Mohali, for proper consignment.
Pronounced 20April 2023
(S.K. Aggarwal)
President
(Shivani Bhargava)
Member
(Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder )
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.