Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/80

Inder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

15 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    C. C. No :                80 of 2018

Date of Institution :      16.05.2018

Date of Decision :        15.07.2019

Inder Singh  aged about 59 years s/o Sajjan Singh, r/o House No.194, Ward No.5, Street No. 9 (R), Balbir Basti, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                              ...Complainant

Versus

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

   .........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 Mohan Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          

cc no -  80 of 2018

                                                 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 bills dated 6.03.2017 and 17.04.2018 for Rs.1,03,560/- and Rs.74,170/-respectively and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that electric connection bearing a/c no  3000422872 has been installed in his premises in his name under DS-WSD category and under WSD category, he is entitled for free electricity units as per policy of State Government. It is submitted that connection in question is in the name of complainant, but OPs have been wrongly issuing bills in the name of Harjinder Singh. Further submitted that complainant received a bill date d17.02.2017 for Rs.6920/- for the period from 25.08.2015 to 17.02.2017 showing old reading 9587 and new 13804 units. Complainant again received bill dated 6.03.2017 for Rs.1,03,560/- for 16699 units for the period from 25.08.2015 to 6.03.2017. It was very excessive in comparison to consumption. Complainant immediately approached Ops and requested to correct the bill, who assured to do so and thereafter, they issued bill dated 16.04.2017 for Rs.6170/- for 4699 units for the period from 25.08.2015 to 16.04.2017 and thus, corrected the said excessive bill, but after that Ops issued bill dated 17.06.2017 for Rs.88,730/- for 740 units for consumption for the period from

cc no -  80 of 2018

16.04.2017 to 17.06.2017 and in this bill arrears of SOP Rs.71,485/-, ED 12611 and Octroi/Cow Cess Rs.1070/-whereas bill dt 16.04.2017 is for Rs.6170/-. Complainant requested OPs that arrears shown in bill dt 6.03.2017 have not been corrected by them, but they did not pay any heed to his requests and threatened to disconnect his electric connection and to avoid disconnection of power supply, complainant deposited Rs.10,000/-each on dates 18.08.2017, 21.08.2017 and 17.08.2017. Ops further issued bills dated 20.10.2017, 21.12.2017 and 22.02.2018 for Rs.71,010/-, Rs.63,250/- and Rs.69,680/-respectively. On  17.04.2018 again, complainant received bill for Rs.74,170/- and on receiving the same, complainant approached Ops and requested them to correct the bills dt 17.04.2018 and 6.03.2017, but they did not hear his genuine requests and disconnected his electric connection. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and it has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to correct the bill dated 6.03.2017 for Rs.1,03,560/- and bill dt 17.04.2018 for Rs.74,170/- and  prayed for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                           Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 16.05.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

cc no -  80 of 2018

4                                               On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement and have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect but admitted before the Forum that connection in question in DS category was installed at his place and he was availing WSD concession and as per rules he is entitled to avail concession upto 3000 units per year and beyond 3000 units, no concession is admissible. It is further averred that bills dt 9.03.2016 for Rs.264, bill dated 8.05.2016 for Rs.584/-, bill dated 7.09.2016 for Rs.7504/-, 7.11.2016 for Rs.7854, 7.01.2017 for Rs.8064/- with meter status of N Code have been deleted. Bill dated 16.04.2017 for the period from 5.08.2015 to 16.04.2017 for 599 days was issued for 4716 units. Bill dated 17.06.2017 was issued for 62 days for Rs.90,000/-and it included the arrears of previous bill. Bill for the period from 17.06.2017 to 10.08.2017 for 54 days for 644 units for Rs.93,630/-was issued and then, bill dated 20.10.2017 was issued for 955 units for 71 days for Rs.70,580/-. Bill for the period from 20.10.2017 to 21.12.2017 for 62 days for 94 units for Rs.62,470/-was issued on minimum basis and then, bill for the period from 20.10.2017 to 22.02.2018 for125 days for 719 units for Rs.73,900/- was issued and then another bill for 54 days for the period from 22.02.2018 to 17.04.2018 was issued for 524 units for Rs.75,220/- and last bill was issued for 892 units for the period from 17.04.2018 to 17.06.2018 for 61 days for Rs.83,820/-. It is submitted that as per chronology of complainant, Rs.86,287/-are due towards complainant on account of consumption charges and amount paid by

cc no -  80 of 2018

complainant has already been adjusted in his account. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and 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 12 and closed the same.

6                                                           In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-20 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                          We have heard the ld counsel for complainant and Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

8                                                          From the careful perusal of documents and evidence placed on record and after going through the arguments advanced by complainant counsel, it is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant is having  electric connection issued by Ops under WSD category and he received a bill for the period from 25.08.2015 to 6.03.2017 for very excessive request, which was corrected

cc no -  80 of 2018

by Ops on request of complainant. But thereafter, again Ops kept sending him inflated bills adding arrears of previous period for which no consumption charges are due towards him. He three times deposited Rs.10,000/- on dates 18.08.2017, 21.08.2017 and 17.08.2017 respectively to avoid disconnection, but they again issued bill dated  17.04.2018 for Rs.74,170/- and even despite repeated requests, OPs did not redress his grievance, which amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed to correct the bill dated 6.03.2017 for Rs.1,03,560/- and bill dt 17.04.2018 for Rs.74,170/- and also prayed for compensation. In reply, Ops admitted the issuance of bill and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Meanwhile, during the course of arguments, ld counsel for OPs brought on record document superseding the earlier instructions  issued by PSPCL that after consumption of 3000 units, WSD concession would not be admissible, but later on OPs have withdrawn such restrictions and therefore, on receipt of these orders, account bearing no.3000422872  of complainant was overhauled for the period from 7.10.2014 to October, 2018 and he is given admissible concession under WSD category and also got recorded separate statement to this effect. Therefore, in the light of statement given by SDO of OPs alongwith ld counsel for OPs, it has become clear that grievance of complainant has been redressed by OPs. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby disposed off being infructuous. In peculiar circumstances of the present complaint, there are no orders to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 15.07.2019                                                                              

(Param Pal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                           Member                           President