DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/176 of 25.8.2015

Smt.Kanchan Bala wife of Sh.Shyam Sunder Khurana, resident of 242/2, Jorian Bhattian, Patiala, through her special power of attorney Shyam Sunder Khurana.                                     

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. HO, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman.
2. The SDO East Sub Division(Commercial) Anardana Chowk,Patiala.
3. Junior Engineer, East Sub Division (Commercial) Anardana Chowk, Patiala.

                                                                    …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.                       

27.8.2015:Present:      Sh.Shyam Sunder Khurana, attorney of the  

                                      complainant with  Sh.A.S.Kathuria,counsel for the

                                    complainant.

ORDER

1. Report of the Superintendent perused. It is alleged by the complainant that she is the holder of domestic electricity connection bearing a/c No.3000089671, installed in her name at House No.242/2, Jorian Bhattian, Patiala. She received the bill dated 15.7.2015 for an amount of Rs.27010/- for the period 19.5.2015 to 15.7.2015 payable on 3.8.2015 and beyond the said date for Rs.27092/-.The bill includes the amount of Rs.16817/- and Rs.5513/- towards arrears of previous and current financial years respectively.
2. Due to some financial constraints the complainant could not deposit the amount of the said bill and approached the concerned officials of the Ops for granting her time to make an arrangement for the amount for depositing the bill but they threatened to disconnect the supply to the electricity connection. In order to save the disconnection of the supply, the husband of the complainant gave a post dated cheque dated 7.8.2015 for an amount of Rs.27092/- drawn in favor of the P.S.P.C.L on 6.8.2015.The husband of the complainant was not having sufficient funds in his account and was unable to arrange for the amount in his account.
3. The complainant sent a notice against Ops no.2&3 with a request not to disconnect the supply of the connection for a period of 30 days. On 21.8.2015, the officials of the Ops came to the premises of the complainant so as to disconnect the supply to the electricity connection. The complainant requested them not to disconnect the supply but they misbehaved with the complainant. The matter was brought to the notice of the SHO P.S.Kotwali, vide unique ID No.805582 dated  22.8.2015. The complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops for granting her reasonable time to make the payment of the amount of the bill in question in five bi-monthly easy installments and to direct the Ops not to disconnect the supply to her connection.
4. Apparently, the complainant has not been able to point out any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. Admittedly the complainant received the bill dated 15.7.2015 for Rs.27010/- payable in cash up to 3.8.2015 and by cheque/DD up to 28.7.2015 and thereafter payable for Rs.27092/-. The complainant admittedly has not deposited the amount of the same either in cash up to 3.8.2015 or through cheque/DD up to 28.7.2015. The husband of the complainant had handed over a post dated cheque dated 7.8.2015 on 6.8.2015 for Rs.27092/- knowingfully well that no sufficient funds were in the credit of her husband.It is not the case of the complainant that the cheque handed over by her husband to Ops has not been encashed despite there being sufficient funds in his account and rather, it is the plea taken up by the complainant that her husband had not the sufficient amount in his account. Thus, the complainant tried to play a trick with the Ops so as to avoid the disconnection of the supply to her connection. A consumer can not enjoy the facility of the electricity without making the payment of the charges for the same. The complainant failed to pay the charges of the bill dated 15.7.2015 as per schedule given in bill Annexure –C itself. It is for the Ops to make any arrangement with the complainant providing her time to pay the amount of the bill in installments but this Forum is not competent to do so. In case the complainant has not deposited the amount of the bill in time, the Ops have got no alternative except to disconnect the supply to the electricity connection under rules. May that as it be, we do not find any allegation of deficiency to have been primafacie made out against the Ops and therefore, the complaint is not found maintainable against the Ops and the same is hereby rejected.

     Member               Member               President