Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/180

Karam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

16 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :          180 of 2019

Date of Institution :     26.07.2019

Date of Decision :       16.03.2020

Karam Singh aged about 67 years s/o Bhajan Singh r/o Jaitu Road, Near Cooperative Bank, Bajakhana, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

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

        .........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 Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

cc no.-180 of 2019

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           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 withdraw the demand of Rs.1,860/- raised vide bill dated 21.05.2019 and for Rs.8,600/- vide bill dated 17.07.2019 and for further directing them to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. BN-15/0909 in his name with sanctioned load of 1.90 KW and he has been paying all the bills as and when received and nothing is due towards him on account of consumption charges. It is submitted that he received a bill dated dated 18.03.2019 for Rs.520/- for 68 units and thereafter, he received bill dated  21.05.2019 for Rs.1,860/-showing the status of meter Code 'D'. Old reading was shown as 6100 units while

cc no.-180 of 2019

new reading was given as 6200 units. Meter of complainant was working correctly and it was recording correct reading, but Ops wrongly showed the status of meter as defective and issued excessive bill on average basis. Complainant approached Ops and requested them to correct the bill. After that employees of Ops removed the meter of complainant without any checking and installed a new meter outside his premises. Now, complainant has received a bill dated 17.07.2019 for Rs.8,600/-for 1071 units on average basis, which is very excessive in comparison to actual consumption of the meter. On receiving the said bill, complainant approached the office of Ops and requested them to correct the bill as per actual consumption, but they did not pay any heed to his genuine requests and flatly refused to correct the said bill and threatened to disconnect the connection if he fails to pay the entire amount in time. 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 correct the bills dated 21.05.2019 and 17.07.2019 for Rs.1,860/- and Rs.8,600/-respectively and has also prayed for further direction to Ops

cc no.-180 of 2019

to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 29.07.2019, 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 taking preliminary objections that they have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the disputes between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before any such committee and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed and is not maintainable and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and even complaint filed by complainant is time barred and this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the same. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and

cc no.-180 of 2019

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 meter of complainant was defective, but its status was being shown as correct and due to this reason, it was showing very less consumption in bill dated 18.03.2019. As meter of the complainant was defective and therefore, bill dt 21.05.2019 was sent to him on average basis taking the consumption of the same month of previous year. Last year consumption was 260 units for 60 days and bill was sent for 277 units for 64 days on average basis as per rules. Defective meter of complainant was changed vide MCO dated 20.06.2019 and again bill dated 17.07.2019 was issued to him on average basis taking the consumption of same month of previous year. Last year consumption was 1127 units for 60 days and bill was sent for 1071 units for 57 days on average basis as per rules and 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

cc no.-180 of 2019

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 7 and closed the same.

6                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukhdev Singh as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-6 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 OPs issued him bills dt 21.05.2019 and 17.07.2019

cc no.-180 of 2019

for Rs.1,860/- and for Rs.8,600/- respectively on average basis, which are very excessive as compared to actual consumption of the complainant. Complainant has alleged that his meter was recording correct reading, but Ops wrongly showed the status of meter as defective and issued excessive bill dt 21.05.2019 on average basis. Ops removed the meter of complainant without any checking and installed a new meter outside his premises and then they sent bill dated 17.07.2019 for Rs.8,600/-for 1071 units on average basis, which is very excessive in comparison to actual consumption of his meter. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, Ops have not corrected the bills dated 21.05.2019 and 17.07.2019 which they issued on average basis and which are very excessive. All this amounts to deficiency in service and he has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, plea taken by OPs is that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and he has levelled false allegations against them and further argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Ops pleaded before the Forum that meter of the complainant was defective and therefore, bill dt 21.05.2019 was sent to

cc no.-180 of 2019

him on average basis taking the consumption of the same month of previous year. Last year consumption was 260 units for 60 days and bill was sent for 277 units for 64 days on average basis as per rules. Defective meter was changed vide MCO dated 20.06.2019 and then, again bill dated 17.07.2019 was issued to him on average basis taking the consumption of same month of previous year. Last year consumption was 1127 units for 60 days and bill was sent for 1071 units for 57 days on average basis as per rules and this amount is correctly charged. Tthere is no deficiency in service on their part and OPs made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                           Through document Ex OP-5 that is copy of MCO dated 20.06.2019, Ops have successfully proved that meter of complaiannt was defective and there is clearly mentioned over it that reading is not visible on meter and status of meter is mentioned as code D. meter of complainant was defective and there is no illegality on the part of Ops in changing the same. They have correctly installed a new meter and action of Ops in sending the bills to complainant during that period on average basis is also appropriate. They have taken the same

cc no.-180 of 2019

consumption as it was during the corresponding months of previous year and bills dated 21.05.2019 and 17.07.2019 sent by them on average basis correspond to the reading of same months of previous year. They have correctly issued bills to complainant on average basis and complainant is liable to pay the same.

 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 on average basis. Bills dated 21.05.2019 and 17.07.2019 are issued to complainant on average basis as per consumption of his meter during the same months of previous year. There seems to be no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and therefore, complaint filed by complainant stands hereby dismissed. 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 Forum

Dated : 16.03.2020

 

                                       (Param Pal Kaur)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

            Member                                   President