DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 248 of 29.6.2017

                                      Decided on: 22.1.2021

 Lachman Singh aged about 45 years son of Sujan Singh resident of House No.173-C,Ranjit Nagar, Seona Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Secretary, The Mall,        Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation      Limited,      Sub Division East Commercial , Patiala through its J.E.
3. Junior Engineer Shingara Singh, Sub Division Model Town, Punjab State         Power Corporation Limited

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member                       

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.S.S.Sahni, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Tanmay Markan, counsel for OPs.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Lacman Singh   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) .
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he is the consumer of the OPs having electricity connection  No.P12JR520558H and account No.30000450 installed in his name for  running a    dairy  shop under the name and style of Kaka Milk Dairy at Manjit Nagar, Near Uppal Sweets, Patiala for earning livelihood of his family.
3. It is averred that in the month of May,2016 he received electricity bill amounting to Rs.39590/-.It is averred that due to loss in business the complainant could not deposited the bill amount. Then OP No.3 came to his shop and compelled him to deposit the bill amount otherwise he will disconnect the electricity connection. Under compelled circumstances, complainant issue  cheque No.752437 dated 24.6.2016 by mentioning PSPCL and electricity account No.3000094050 and handed over the same to JE Shingara Singh OP No.3 and promised to pay the rest of the amount shortly but he could not deposited the balance amount and closed the shop.
4. It is averred that  thereafter he received bill dated 4.5.2017 amounting to Rs.40560/-.On receipt of this bill he went to the office of OP No.2 came to know that the cheque No.752437 dated 24.6.2016 amounting to Rs.26000/- was not put by JE Shingara Singh in his  electric account No.3000094050 and rather the same was deposited in the account of Amarjit Singh who is having shop of cattle feed at Bhadson Road, Patiala . It is further averred that the bill dated 4.5.2017 is illegal, null and void and same is liable to be quashed.
5. O n this back ground of the facts the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to quash the bill dated 4.5.2017 it being illegal, null and void and cannot be recovered without adjusting Rs.26000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- .
6. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable  and is liable to be dismissed.
7. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is running dairy in question and the meter in question is installed in the said shop. It is admitted that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.26000/- as part payment but has failed to deposit the remaining amount of the bill. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In evidence the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C9 and closed the evidence.
9. The ld. counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Er.Sandeep Puri alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and closed the evidence.      
10. The OPs have also filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that he was running a dairy under the name and style of Kaka Milk Dairy at Manjit Nagar, Near Uppal Sweets, Patiala. The ld. counsel further argued that there was an electric connection installed in the said shop. The ld. counsel further argued that due to loss in business the complainant decided to close the shop. The complainant received bill amounting to Rs.39590/-.The ld. counsel further argued that since the complainant could not deposit the bill and the complainant made the part payment vide cheque of Rs.26000/-.The complainant could not deposit the balance consideration and on 4.5.2017 bill for Rs.40560/- was again sent but the amount of Rs.26000/- was not deducted from this bill. The ld. counsel further argued that  the bill is illegal, null and void so the complaint be allowed.
12. On the other hand, the OPs have admitted that they have received the bill amount of Rs.26000/- and the same has been deposited in the account of the complainant. So it be decided accordingly.
13. The complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he deposed as per his complaint, Ex.C1 is the impugned bill of Rs.40560/-,Ex.C2 is the another bill of Rs.39590/-Ex.C3 is the copy of Aadhar card,Ex.C4 statement of account,Ex.C5 transaction sheet and Ex.C6 copy of RTI report.
14. On behalf of the OPs Er.Sandeep Puri, AEE has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as below:

“ It is correct that due to some clerical mistake the amount of Rs.26000/- was deposited in some other account but the same stands adjusted in the account of the complainant. After adjustment of Rs.26000/- , the complainant is liable to pay the remaining amount lying outstanding against him”.

15.    So from the affidavit, Ex.OPA of Er.Sandeep Puri, A.E.E., of OPs, it is clear that from the impugned amount of Rs.40560/- , Rs.26000/- has already been paid by the complainant. Now the complainant is liable to pay only Rs.14560/-.
16. So due to our aforesaid discussion the complaint stands partly allowed. As the  amount of Rs.26000/-has already been paid out of Rs.40560/- as such the complainant is liable to pay Rs.14560/- the balance amount of the bill, within a period of one month from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation and Rs.10,000/-as costs of the litigation.

Compliance of the order be made by theOPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:22.1.2021       

                            Vinod Kumar Gulati      Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                   Member                                        President