Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/6

Kanwaljit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Hatinder Singh

09 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:6 dated 08.01.2020.                                                   Date of decision: 09.11.2021. 

 

Kanwaljit Kaur Senior Citizen aged about 69 years widow of Ashok Bedi, resident of House No.10979, Prem Nagar, St. No.1, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana Mobile No.93168-63963.                                                                                                                                                                    ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

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

2. The Sub Divisional Officer (T)/UN Division, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                       …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OPs                         :         Sh. R.S. Pandher, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that she is a consumer of the OPs vide electricity connection No.W530FB60731F and account No.3002334630 which stands installed in her residential house. After the death of her husband, the complainant resides with her daughters, but one of her daughters is residing at Gurgaon whereas others are residents of Ludhiana. There has been hardly any consumption of electricity due to less number of members. However, sometimes back, the complainant received a bill of Rs.57,000/- which was challenged on the ground of faulty meter. However, the complainant was forced to deposit the amount of Rs.40,000/- on 22.03.2019  and Rs.10,000/- on 28.03.2019. Now the complainant has received another bill cum notice dated 26.11.2019 for a sum of Rs.46,067/- for consumption of 614 units. When the complainant contacted the OPs, she was told that she should pay the bill failing which her electric connection would be disconnected. After the change of the meter, the complainant has concerned just 2728 units. Therefore, the huge bill of Rs.46,067/- is not justifiable by any standards. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be restrained from disconnecting the electric connection.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been pleaded, inter alia, that the complainant has suppressed the material fats while filing the complaint. According to the OPs, an electric connection with sanctioned load of 09.970 KW was running in the premises of the complainant. She had cleared the bills up to 12/2017. However, after that the complainant did not pay the full amount of electricity consumption bills issued from time to time. Due to non payment, the electricity charges accumulated to the extent of Rs.21,006/- up to period 11/2018. In the month of 11/2018, the electricity consumption bill amounting to Rs.36,358/- was issued on the basis of 4239 units recorded by the electricity meter of the complainant. The complainant challenged the said bill in the month of February 2019. On her request, the electric meter was changed vide MCO No.100007513493. The previous meter was packed and sealed in a card box in the presence of the complainant. The removed meter was sent to M.E. Lab, where it was checked after obtaining the written consent of the complainant. On checking the accuracy the meter was found within the permissible limits. The complainant got the matter in question referred to Dispute Settlement Committee for adjudication. A personal opportunity of being heard was afforded to the complainant. As per the order passed by the Dispute Settlement Committee, the data recorded in DDL did not match with the consumption recorded in the bills. Accordingly, the bill was issued with less consumption than the actual consumption recorded by the meter. On receipt of the order of Dispute Settlement Committee, the complainant approached this Forum instead of depositing the amount. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as incorrect and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                None on behalf of the complainant is appearing in this case since 12.02.2021. Though the case was adjourned on many occasions awaiting presence of the complainant. Therefore, we have heard the counsel for the OPs and proceed to decide the case on merits in the absence of the complainant.

4.                To controvert the allegations and averments made in the written statement the complainant has not filed any rejoinder though an affidavit of the complainant is attached with the complaint but in the complaint as well as in the affidavit, it has not been clarified as to how the demand of Rs.46,067/- is illegal, null or void.  Moreover, while filing the complaint, the complainant has not made any reference to the facts that the matter was got referred to the Dispute Settlement Committee and the committee after taking into consideration all the data and record has already reduced the liability of the complainant. Moreover, in the prayer clause of the complaint, the demand of Rs.46,067/- has not been challenged. The only relief for which a prayer has been made is a restraint order against the OPs for disconnection of the electric connection. However, this part of the relief cannot be granted as a sum of Rs.46,067/- is outstanding and in the event of non-payment of electricity charges the OPs would be left with no option, but to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant.

5.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed being without any merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

6.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.11.2021.

Gobind Ram.