Punjab

Sangrur

CC/829/2015

Karnil Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Navit Puri

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.  829

                                                Instituted on:    13.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       14.03.2016

 

Karnail Singh aged about 62 years son of Sant Singh, R/O Village Bhattiwal Kalan, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Supply Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its M.D.

2.     Assistant Engineer, (SDO), Sub Division, Punjab State Power Supply Corporation Ltd. Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.  

                                                                ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S. Ratol, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Nachattar Singh, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Karnail Singh, 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 is the consumer of electricity connection bearing account number S41BH560557W. It is further averred that the connection in question was issued to the complainant under the subsidy scheme as he belongs to Schedule Caste Category and the complainant has been paying the bills of electricity regularly to the OPs.  It is further averred that the OPs installed electric meter number 272070 in the house of the complainant since 15 years back.  The complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill for Rs.13,647/-, which is said to be illegal one. It is further stated that thereafter the Ops replaced the electricity meter with new meter number 234141 and thereafter the next bill for Rs.15,260/- was issued, which is said to be wrong and illegal. It is further averred that the complainant is a poor aged person and is unable to deposit such a huge bill, as such the complainant approached the OPs so many times for withdrawal of the amount, but the OPs disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant wrongly and illegally, which is said to be clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the alleged amount of Rs.13,647/- raised vide bill dated 1.5.2015 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it has been admitted that the OPs have issued the bill for Rs.13,647/-, but the remaining allegations of the complainant have been denied.  It is an admitted fact that the Ops are giving the benefit of the scheme of the State Govt. to the complainant. It is further stated that in the month of 11/2014, the bill amounting to Rs.15,260/- was issued for consumption of 2336 units for the period 9/2014 to 11/2014 and after receiving the bill, the complainant moved an application dated 7.11.2014 for waiver of the bill, but the complainant was apprised that the bill has been issued as per the actual consumption. Thereafter the complainant challenged the accuracy of the meter and deposited the requisite fee, as such, the meter was changed vide MCO number 48/140941 dated 26.11.2014 which was effected on 28.11.2014. The old meter was packed and sealed in the cardboard box and it was checked in the ME laboratory, Sangrur vide store challan number 142 dated 8.1.2015, where it was found OK and as such, after 11/2014, bills were issued on 1/2015 for 53 units, 3/2015 for 38 units and 5/2015 for 307 units, but no amount of SOP and ED etc. were charged as the consumption was below permissible consumption. However, the arrears of bill dated 11/2014 amounting to Rs.15,260/- have been charged.  However, due to non payment of the actual consumption charges, the connection was disconnected temporarily on 5.8.2015, but as per the orders of the Forum dated 18.8.2015, the connection was restored vide RCO number 75/51063 dated 21.8.2015.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 electricity bills, Ex.C-7 copy of aadhar card, Ex.C-8 copy of ID proof and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 copy of request letter, Ex.OP-2 copy of self declaration, Ex.OP-3 copy of receipt, Ex.OP-4 copy of ledger, Ex.OP-5 copy of MCO, Ex.OP-6 copy of store challan, Ex.OP-7 copy of result of challenged meter, Ex.OP-8 copy of detail of amount, Ex.OP-9 copy of RCO, Ex.OP-10 and Ex.OP-11 affidavits and closed evidence.

 

4.             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.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the consumer of electricity connection in question.   In the present case the dispute is over the demand of Rs.13,647/- raised by the OPs in the disputed bill dated 1.5.2015, which the complainant has alleged that the same is illegal and without any basis, as he never used the electricity to such an extent.                

 

6.             First of all, we may mention that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands as he has concealed material facts from this Forum by not mentioning/disclosing the same in the complaint such as  Ex.OP-1 is the copy of application submitted by the complainant on 7.11.2014 whereby he has requested the OPs to withdraw the bill for Rs.12,389/- and also submitted an affidavit whereby he challenged the accuracy of the meter and also deposited Rs.120/- vide receipt Ex.OP-3.  Ex.OP-5 is the copy of meter change order which was effected 28.11.2014 and thereafter the same was checked in the ME laboratory, whose report is on record as Ex.OP-7, wherein the meter is shown to be OK. All these facts have been withheld by the complainant from this Forum, as such, we feel that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum.  Further the OPs have produced Ex.OP-8 details of outstanding bills, which shows that the complainant was issued bill dated 11/2014 for Rs.12408+1239 total Rs.14021/-, which was not paid and thereafter the said dues of electricity were further carried on in the bills dated 1/15, 3/2015 and 5/2015, as such, the bill for 5/2015 was issued to the complainant for Rs.15,260/-.  The complainant has produced on record the bill dated 1.5.2015, 5.3.2015, 22.2.2013, 19.12.2010 and 22.4.2014 as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6, but there is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not produce on record the bill dated 11/2014 and 1/2015.  As such, we feel that the dues are only account of consumption charges raised by the Ops vide bill dated 11/2014 and it cannot be said that the charges are on account of sundry charges. Moreover, the bill dated 11/2014 is not under challenge. The Hon’ble National Commission in Ramanbhai Somabhai Patel versus Chief Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board 1994(1) CLT 155 (NC) has held that when the complainant is in the arrears in the matter of payment of bills, the Electricity Board had the right and authority under law to disconnect or cut off the supply of electric energy to the premises of the consumer who makes default in payment. Such a disconnection cannot give rise to any cause of action for recovering of compensation from the Board.  The same are the circumstances in the present case, as the complainant has failed to deposit the regular bill of 11/2014 for consumption of electricity, as such, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 

 

7.             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 issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 14, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member