Punjab

Sangrur

CC/609/2014

Kamlesh Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.M. Goyal

16 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    609

                                                Instituted on:      11.11.2014

                                                Decided on:       16.04.2015

 

Kamlesh Rani aged about 58 years wife of Late Bant Singh, resident of Ward No.1, Mohalla Janta Nagar, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary.

2.     AEE, SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Old Grain Market, City Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.M.Goyal, Adv.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Kamlesh Rani, 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 obtained one electricity connection from the OPs bearing account number L81MF380760H with a sanctioned load of 0.460 KW and that the complainant has been using the connection and paying the bills regularly.

 

2.               The case of the complainant is that he received a bill in the month of May, 2014 for Rs.8260/-, wherein an amount of Rs.7240/- was demanded on account of sundry charges and the complainant immediately approached the OPs to withdraw the demand of Rs.7240/- on account of sundry charges, but OP number 2 refused to do so. It is further stated by the OP that if the complainant did not deposit the bill in question, her connection will be disconnected, as such, the complainant deposited the bill in question on 6.6.2014 to avoid disconnection.

 

3.             It is further averred that again the complainant received another bill in the month of September, 2014 for Rs.7320/- out of which an amount of Rs.6417/- was on account of sundry charges, as such the complainant approached the OP number 2 for withdrawal of the demand of Rs.6417/-, but nothing happened.   It is further averred that the status of her meter was OK nor the meter was ever checked in the ME laboratory.  It is further averred that the complainant approached the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.7240/- and withdraw the demand of Rs.6417/-, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.7240/- and further to withdraw the demand of Rs.6417/- on account of sundry charges, apart from compensation and litigation expenses. 

4.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the Ops have been dragged into unwanted litigation and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of electricity connection in question.  It is further averred that the OP number 2 issued bill in the month of May, 2014 for Rs.8260/- including Rs.7240/- which was deposited by her on 6.6.2014.  It is further stated that thereafter OP number 2 issued bill in the month of 9/2014 for Rs.7320/-.  It is further averred that OP number 2 issued bill in the month of 7/2014 for the amount of Rs.3017/- and surcharge Rs.255/- i.e. total Rs.3272/- , but the complainant did not deposit the same and thereafter OP number 2 issued bill in the month of September, 2014 for Rs.7320/- and surcharge of Rs.354/- total Rs.7674/- including Rs.3272/- of pervious arrears of bill for 7/2014.  It is further averred that the complainant did not deposit the bill for Rs.7674/-, as such OP number 2 in the month of 11/2014 issued bill for Rs.11100/- and surcharge Rs.300/-, total Rs.11,400/-, but the same was also not deposited.  As such, it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 copies of bills, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 copies of receipts, Ex.C-6 copy of letter, Ex.C-7 copy of prescription slip, Ex.C-8 copy of voter card, Ex.C-9 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 details of amount, Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6 copies of ledgers, Ex.OP-7 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

6.             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.

 

7.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact that the connection in question is running in the name of the complainant, as such, he is a consumer of the OPs vide connection in question.

 

8.             In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on raising of the demand of Rs.8260/- vide bill dated 22.5.2014 by the OPs, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2, which was deposited by the complainant on 6.6.2014 under protest.  Further the complainant has challenged the demand of Rs.6417/- raised vide bill dated 25.09.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-1.  We have further perused the copy of consumption data relating to the connection of the complainant and found that the bill dated 9/2014 for Rs.7674/- includes Rs.3272/- as arrears of previous bill dated 7/2014.  Further bill dated 5/2014 for Rs.8260/- was also includes previous arrears of Rs.4601/- i.e. the amount which were not deposited by the complainant.  In the circumstances, we further find that the OPs have not inserted any illegal amount in the current consumption bills, rather the amounts included were only consumption charges of the previous bills which were not deposited by the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced on record any receipts showing the deposit of the bills in question. Since, the complainant has failed to show us any illegal demands raised by the OPs in the bills dated 5/2014 and 9/2014, we are unable to hold any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. As such, the complaint of the complainant fails and deserves to be dismissed.

 

9.             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.

                April 16, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member