Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1051

Lakhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

In person

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1051 of 2012

 

                                                Date of Institution: 09.08.2012

                                                Date of Decision :  07.10.2015

 

Lakhvinder Singh aged about 34 years son of Buta Singh R/o Village Dalomajra, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib. 

               

                                                                                                                                              …..Appellant/ Complainant  

 

                                      Versus

 

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

 

2.      Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation  Ltd., Basantpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

 

3.      Mr. Tarlochan Singh, J.E Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Basantpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

 

 

                                                                                                                                     … Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 18.06.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Fatehgarh Sahib

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

              Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant         :         Sh.B.S Sani, Advocate

          For the respondents    :         Sh.R.S Bains, Advocate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 18.06.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Fatehgarh Sahib, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant now appellant in this appeal against the same.

2.      The complainant Lakhvinder Singh has filed  the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he is holder of electricity connection bearing account no.P-34BF080302 in his residential house from OPs. He has been regularly paying the electricity charges to OPs. OPs issued bill of electricity of Rs.10,350/- to complainant in the month of August 2011. The complainant approached the OPs and moved an application to rectify it by inspecting the meter, which was marked to OP No.3 for inspecting the meter. But OP No.3 did not take appropriate action and rather started harassing the complainant and raised the demand of bribe from the complainant. The OPs indulged in unfair trade practice by rendering deficiency in service for recovering the amount of Rs.10.350/-. OP No.3 is inimical to complainant and forced the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.11,944/-. OPs illegally disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant, which is liable to be restored. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and has filed a complaint praying further that the illegal demand of alleged amount of Rs.11,944/- raised by OPs be quashed and electricity connection be restored of the complainant.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in preliminary objections by OPs that complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and merits dismissal. The complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint. The complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint. The complainant is alleged to be false, frivolous and vexatious. The jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum was questioned to try the complaint. On merits, the complaint was contested by OPs, it was pleaded that,  as per the record of the OPs, the amount of consumption of Rs.10,410/- plus surcharges have been pending on the electricity connection account no.P-34 BF 080302 till this date. In the month of August 2011, OPs issued a bill of Rs.10,350/- and complainant moved an application before OP No.2 for inspecting the meter. It was denied that OP no.3 did not take any appropriate action on the complaint of the complainant. It was further pleaded that complaint filed application before SDO for checking of electricity meter in laboratory on 25.08.2012 and submitted a duly attested affidavit along with application. On repeated demand of the official of the OPs, the complainant had not deposited Rs.120/- as meter challenge fee. The OPs issued bill to the complainant, as per consumption of the electricity, but the complainant has not deposited the amount of the consumption of the bill. The connection of the complainant was disconnected due to defaulting amount of Rs.10,410/-, vide PDCO No.80/32 and same was complied with on 30.09.2011. The official of OPs directed the complainant to deposit the consumption amount, but the complainant had not deposited the same. After that, as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL, after PDCO, the electric meter of the complainant was sent to ME Lab on 03.11.2011, vide store challan no. 46. As per report of the ME Lab, the meter of the complainant was burnt and burnt meter was not checked, as per the provisions. OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10. As against it OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajinder Kumar SDO/AE of PSPCL/OPs along with copies of documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Fatehgarh Sahib, dismissed the complaint of the complainant, by virtue of order dated 18.06.2012 of District Forum Fatehgarh Sahib. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Fatehgarh Sahib, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.

6.      The evidence on record is required to be adverted to by us to come to the conclusion, as to whether order of the District Forum is legally sustainable or not in this appeal. The affidavit of Lakhvinder Singh complainant in support of his averments, as contained in the complaint is Ex.C-1 on the record. He has stated in this affidavit that he has been regularly paying the consumption charges of the electricity connection to OPs and nothing is due from him. He further stated in this affidavit that in the month of August 2011 the OPs issued bill of electricity of Rs.10,350/- to complainant. The complainant suspected genuineness of consumption bill and moved an application to OPs, which was marked to OP No.3 by OP No.2 for needful. He further stated in his affidavit that OP No.3 had not taken any appropriate action and rather started harassing the complainant and demanded bribe from the complainant. He further deposed that OPs have committed unfair trade practice, while recovering the amount of Rs.10,350/- from the complainant. He testified in this affidavit that the OPs raised illegal demand of Rs.11,944/- from the complainant. Ex.C-2 is application filed by the complainant to the head of the OPs on 30.09.2011. Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 are copies of the postal receipts. Ex.C-6 is copy of undated application moved to SDO Sub Divisional Office Sarai Banjara by complainant. Ex.C-7 copy of affidavit of Lakhvinder Singh. Ex.C-8 is copy of bill proved that old meter reading is 6192 and new reading is 6068 on 14.10.2010 and new meter reading is 6279 on 04.02.2011 and old reading is 6192 on 12.12.2010. There is very small difference of units. Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 are other copies of bill.

7.      To refute this evidence, OPs relied upon copy of application of complainant to SDO Ex.R-1. Copy of affidavit of complainant Ex.R-2. Ex.R-3 is statement of account of complainant. Ex.R-4 is disconnection order of dated 30.09.2011. Ex.R-5 is ledger account of complainant. Ex.R-6 is affidavit of Rajinder Kumar, SDO/AE PSPCL/OPs on the record.

8.      We find that complainant moved application for change of the meter, but complainant has not deposited the fee of Rs.120/-, which is required essentially by regulations for the change of the meter. The bill Ex.C-10 has shown the amount of Rs.11,944/-, as due towards consumption charges and reading shown as 8604 units on 10.08.2011. The PDCO was carried out on 30.09.2011, when the meter showed reading of 09033 units, as recorded in Ex.R-4 on the record. In Ex.C-10, the meter has shown the reading of 8604 units on 10.08.2011.  The consumption of unit is 09033 units. There is a difference of 349 units, as found by us on the record and so observed by the District Forum, as well. It is not shown to be burnt when the PDCO was effected on this connection, vide Ex.C-4. From Ex.R-4, we find that it is not recorded that meter was burnt rather it was in working condition and it burnt after 30.09.2011. We find that from 10.06.2011 to 10.08.201,  the meter consumed 1812 units of electricity and from 10.08.2011 to 30.09.2011 meter consumed 349 units of the electricity. The electricity is generally used in a great magnitude in the summer season due to scorching heat. We do not find any evidence on the record that meter was running fast or burnt on 30.09.2011. Consequently, we do not find any illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum calling for any interference therein in this appeal finding no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.       

9.      As a result of our above discussion, we affirm the order of the District Forum  Fatehgarh Sahib dated 18.06.2012 under challenge in this case and resultantly the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is ordered to be dismissed.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 05.10.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                       (H.S. GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

October7 ,  2015.                                                                

(ravi)