Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/73

Jaspal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

23 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :          73 of 2019

                                                     Date of Institution :     13.03.2019

     Date of Decision :       23.02.2022

Jaspal Singh aged about 57 years s/o Bachhittar Singh r/o Village Sadiq, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

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

        .........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

cc no.-73 of 2019

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                            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 refund the amount of Rs.1000/- deposited by complainant under protest  and for issuing bill dated 9.03.2019 illegally and for further directing them to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. F38SF963436H installed outside his house since March, 2018. It is submitted that complainant belongs to scheduled caste category and as per scheme of Punjab Government, 200 units per month are free to this category. Further submitted that sanctioned load of complainant is less than 1 KW. OPs did not send bill for the months of May and July, 2018, but in the bill sent in September, 2018, OPs demanded Rs.3,800/- for the months of May and July. On receiving the same,

cc no.-73 of 2019

complainant approached OP-1 and moved application seeking correction of bill and also requested them to withdraw the notice, but OPs told him to deposit Rs.1000/-, failing which his connection would be disconnected and under protest complainant had to deposit Rs.1000/-with them. Ops again sent bill for Rs.3440/-. Complainant requested them to withdraw the same, but OPs put him off on one pretext or the other. After that OPs sent bill dt 09.03.2019 for Rs.3550/-. Complainant again requested them to  withdraw the same, but OP-1 did not do anything needful. Even Rs.1000/-deposited by complainant were not adjusted by OPs. Repeated requests made by complainant to withdraw the said bill and to refund Rs.1000/-deposited by him bore no fruit. All this act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and has caused huge inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to withdraw the bill for Rs.3,550/- and to refund Rs.1,000/-deposited by complainant and has also prayed for further direction to Ops to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental

 

cc no.-73 of 2019

agony suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 13.03.2019, 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 OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that correct bills are issued to complainant and there is no need to correct the same. Complainant has levelled false allegations against them and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. Ld counsel for Ops brought before the Forum that bill sent to complainant for the month of September, 2018 was for 107 days and total consumption was of 1194  units and after giving concession of 713 units, bill for Rs.3,880/- was sent and complainant deposited Rs.1000/-. Next bill was sent for Rs.3440/- and

 

cc no.-73 of 2019

this bill was sent in November, 2018. Bill was of nil consumption and it was for Rs.2960/- and this amount was of balance of previous bill which was sent in September, 2018  and then, bill for January, 2019 was sent for Rs.3440/- for consumption of 447 units. Amount of Rs.3440/- also included Rs.3059 on account of previous balance. Further averred that this bill included previous balance alongwith surcharges only and no amount was charged on account of consumption as the same was just 79 units. This amount is correctly charged. Complainant has filed a false complaint against answering Ops and there is no deficiency in service on their part. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed 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 C-5 and closed the same.

cc no.-73 of 2019

6                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-4 and then, closed the same 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 and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that he belongs to scheduled category and as per policy of PSPCL, 200 units of power are free to him every month. It is alleged that OPs did not issue him any bill in May and July, 2018, but issued him excessive bill in September, 2018 for Rs.3880/- and under protest he had to deposit Rs.1000/-with OPs. Ops again issued him bill for Rs.3440/-and then issued bill dated 9.03.2019 for Rs.3550/-. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests to correct the said bills, OPs did not pay any heed to redress his grievance, rather they

cc no.-73 of 2019

threatened him to disconnect his electricity connection. It amounts to deficiency in service and he has prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the other hand, in reply OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs  and asserted that all the impugned bills are rightly issued as per consumption charges after giving due concession and complainant is liable to pay the same.

9                                            Through document Ex OP-2 which is copy of bill dated 10.09.2018 it is clear that this bill was for 107 days for Rs.3,880/- for consumption of 1194 units of power. Concession of 713 units is granted to complainant. Consumption during the month of September was nil and this bill contained the amount of Rs.2960/-of previous bill.  Further document Ex OP-3 that is copy of bill dated 12.11.2019 shows zero consumption and in this bill only previous arrear is added. Bill for January, 2019 for 447 units was for Rs.3440/- and it also included Rs.3059/- as previous balance and the bill for the month of March included previous balance

cc no.-73 of 2019

alongwith surcharges and it is brought before the Commission that consumption charges for 79 units are not charged at all. Bill dated 12.11.2018 for the period from 10.09.2018 to 12.11.2018 and bill dated 10.01.2019 for the period from 12.11.2018 to 10.01.2019, clear the point that concession as per scheme has been granted to him, but amount charged, stands included on account of previous balance. Bill  Ex OP-4 dated 10.01.2019 for the period from 12.11.2018 to 10.01.2019, also clears this point. All bills have been correctly issued and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

 10                                      In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is made out that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops as they have already sent the bills to complainant after giving concession as per scheme meant for said category and requisite benefit has already been imparted to complainant. Complainant is liable to pay the bill as per consumption charges. No justification is put forward by complainant to prove his pleadings. Bills issued in the months of September, 2018,  12.11.2018 and 10.01.2019 are correctly issued and are issued after giving requisite and due concession of 200

cc no.-73 of 2019

units per month to complainant as per scheme made for scheduled caste category. There seems to be no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and therefore, complaint filed by complainant stands hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 23.02.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                         

Member                          Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cc no.-73 of 2019

Jaspal Singh    Vs    PSPCL

 

 

Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

                       Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 23.02.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member