DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 315 of 29.12.2015
Decided on: 24.4.2018
Khazan Singh S/o S. Avtar Singh aged about 68 years, resident of H.no.703/3, Khalsa Mohalla, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
- Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
- The Assistant Executive Engineer West (Commercial) West Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Gaurav Bansal, Advocate,
counsel for the complainant.
Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Khazan Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.)
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a house from S.Tarlochan Singh on 26.11.85, in which D.S.electricity connection bearing account No. 3000030474 with sanctioned load of 4.420Kw was installed. The meter for the said electricity connection has been installed outside the premises of the complainant alongwith other meters from many years.The complainant has been paying the bills of electricity, regularly. It is stated that he received a bill dated 12.8.2015 for the period from 10.6.2015 to 8.8.2015 for an amount of Rs.9670/-and the same was paid by him on 24.8.2015.He received another bill dated 16.10.2015 for the period from 10.6.2015 to 16.10.2015, for an amount of Rs.63,880/- in which an amount of Rs.12561/- ( Rs.77527/- minus Rs.12561/-) was adjusted. The complainant approached and requested the OPs to rectify the same. He was directed by the OPs to deposit Rs.15000/- with the assurance that all the bills would be adjusted in future bills. Accordingly he deposited Rs.15000/- on 20.10.2015.Thereafter, he received bill dated 14.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.57,710/- in which Rs.49000/-were added as arrears of current financial year. The complainant approached and requested the OPs to rectify the bill dated 14.12.2015 but they flatly refused to entertain his request and failed to provide the information as to on what account a huge amount of Rs.49000/- out of Rs.57710/- and Rs.77527/- has been charged from the complainant in the bills dated 16.12.2015 and 16.10.2015 .It is stated that the OPs threatened the complainant that if he failed to deposit the entire amount, the electricity connection would be disconnected. It is stated that the complainant is ready to deposit the current charges as mentioned in the bill dated 14.12.2015 except the arrears of current year. The impugned bills are against the principles of natural justice and rules and regulations of PSPCL. There is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs to set aside the impugned bills dated 14.12.2015 and 16.10.2015; to restrain the OPs from disconnecting the electric connection of his residential premises; to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation ; to allow the complainant to deposit the actual electricity charges except arrears and also to grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is denied that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs as the connection is still running in the name of one Tarlochan Singh. It is admitted that an electricity connection bearing account No.3000030474 with sanctioned load of 4.420KW under DS category was installed in the name of said Sh. Tarlochan Singh. It is admitted that bill dated 12.8.2015 for the period from 10.6.2015 to 8.8.2015 for an amount of Rs.9670/-was sent to the complainant and the same was paid by him on 24.8.2015 vide receipt No.210005786705.It is also admitted that bill dated 16.10.2015 for the period from 10.6.2015 to 16.10.2015 for an amount of Rs.63,880/-was issued to the complainant. It is stated that the bill dated 8.8.2015 was sent to the complainant on average basis of “S” code. Thereafter the meter of the complainant was changed with the new meter on 18.9.2015 in the presence of the complainant who signed the MCO. At the time of removing the old meter, its reading was 15632 units whereas the complainant was charged for 8414 units. As such difference of 15632-8414 units was chargeable from the complainant. Bill dated 16.10.2015 for Rs.63,880/-was sent to the complainant on actual basis, in which an amount of Rs.12561/- of previous bill dated 12.8.2015 was shown as deducted. Thereafter bill dated 23.10.2015 was issued after including the difference of 7218 units .It is also admitted that bill dated 14.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.57,710/-was issued ,which included arrears of Rs.49000/-as the complainant has not cleared the bill dated 16.10.2015.It is admitted that the complainant cleared the payment upto the bill dated 12.8.2015.There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C10 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Deepak Goyal, SDO alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence of the OPs.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the OPs has raised the objection that the complainant is not a consumer qua the OPs because the electric connection in question is in the name of Tarlochan Singh whereas the present complaint has been filed by Sh.Khazan Singh and thus the same is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. To this effect, the ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted, the house having electric connection in question was purchased by the complainant from Sh.Tarlochan Singh as is evident from the copy of sale deed, Ex.C7. He further submitted that as the complainant is the owner of the house, where the impugned electricity connection is installed and for which he has been paying the electricity charges regularly, therefore, he is the consumer qua the OPs and the present complaint is maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum.
As per Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, which reads as under:
‘Consumer’ Means any person who,-
- …………………
(ii) [hires or avails of ]any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person[but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]
From the sale deed Ex.C7, it is evident that the complainant had purchased the house from Sh.Tarlochan Singh, where the electric connection having account No.3000030474 is running. Since the complainant is the owner of the said house and has been consuming the electricity under the connection installed for the said house and is paying the charges of the electricity regularly, therefore, he being a beneficiary is a ‘consumer’ qua the OPs, as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the objection raised by the OPs in this regard is not sustainable.
7. On merits, it may be stated here that in the copy of job order for device replacement, Ex.OP1, the order start date has been mentioned as 13.8.2015 and the order finished date has been mentioned as 18.8.2015,meaning thereby the new meter was installed on 18.8.2015. From the said job order, it is also evident that the old meter was removed with the meter reading as 15632 units. As such the complainant was liable to pay the electricity charges for the consumption of 15632 units qua the old meter. From the copy of the bill dated 12.8.2015,Ex.C3/OP2, it is evident that the said bill was raised for the period from 10.6.2015 to 8.8.2015 on “S” code basis for consumption of electricity of 8414 units only. Since the bill dated 12.8.2015 was issued on the basis of “S” code, for 8414 units,therefore, the difference of 7218 units i.e. 15632 minus 8414 units was chargeable from the complainant. From the bill dated 16.10.2015,Ex.C2, it is evident that the OPs issued the said bill for a sum of Rs.63,880/- after deducting the amount of Rs.12,652/- of the previous bill dated 12.8.2015 already paid by the complainant. From the copy of document Ex.C4, it is evident that the complainant had paid Rs.15000/- on 28.10.2015. Since the OPs have raised the bills dated 14.12.2015,Ex.C1 & dated 16.10.2015,Ex.C2 for the electricity actually consumed by the complainant, therefore, the OPs cannot be held to be deficient in rendering services. Be that as it may, we do not find any merits in the complaint. Consequently, we dismiss the complaint without any order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:24.4.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
