Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1480/2015

Leela Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sumir Fatta

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1480

                                                Instituted on:    17.11.2015

                                                Decided on:       08.08.2016

 

Leela Singh son of Behal Singh, resident of Patti Batuha, Near SLIET College, VPO Longowal, Tehsil and District Sangrur. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory, The Mall, Patiala.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Longowal, Tehsil and District, Sangrur.

                                                                ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Leela 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 S53AB861523H which has been installed the house of the complainant with a sanctioned load of 2.58KW.  It has been further averred in the complaint that in the month of May, 2015, the complainant was shocked to receive a bill in which the OPs raised an illegal demand of Rs.29,061/- on account of the last year, which is said to be totally illegal, null and void. As such, the complainant immediately approached OP number 2 and requested  them to correct the bill as per the actual consumption. It is further stated that thereafter the meter of the complainant was changed in the month of July, 2015, but no signatures of the complainant were obtained at that time.  Further it is stated that on 29.9.2015, the complainant was shocked to receive a bill for Rs.33,840/- on account of voltage surcharge. Again the complainant approached the Ops to correct the bill, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the bill dated 29.9.2015 and to quash the demand of Rs.29861/- raise bill dated 29.9.2015 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the complaint, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and that the Ops are not liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs. It is stated further that  the complainant challenged the meter after depositing the meter challenge fee of Rs.120/- vide receipt dated 10.4.2015 and on the request of the complainant the meter was removed vide MCO number 76/103439 dated 10.4.2015, which was effected on 15.4.2015 and the old meter was packed as per the rules. It is further averred that thereafter the meter was checked in the ME laboratory and during checking it was found that the same is dead and the meter reading was shown as 11862. After receipt of the report from the ME laboratory, the Ops sent the bill on account of consumption charges. It is further stated that the meter previous reading was shown as 6056 units and the last bill was deposited upto 1741 units, so that total consumption is 6056 units minus 1741 units i.e. 4315 units, which are unbilled, as such, it is stated that the complainant was charged for 4315 units.   The whole story narrated in the complaint is said to be wrong and illegal and 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 copy of bill and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit, Ex.Op/2 copy of MCO, Ex.OP/3 copy of result of store challan, Ex.OP-4 copy of store challan, Ex.OP-5 copy of bill dated 30.3.2015 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 complainant has challenged the accuracy of the bill dated 29.9.2015 whereby the Ops have raised a demand of Rs.33840/- and an amount of Rs.29861/- has been raised as voltage surcharge and the complainant has said that the same is quite illegal and without any basis which should be quashed/withdrawn.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that at the time of checking of the meter in the ME laboratory, its reading was 6056 units, whereas his previous reading was 1741 meaning thereby he was having the unbilled reading to the tune of 4315 units, as such, it is contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that the disputed demand is on account of unbilled 4315 units.  A bare perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant has produced on record  only copy of the bill dated 29.9.2015, Ex.C-2, but the copies of the bills prior to that period have not been produced by the complainant to show that the same were duly paid.  Further there is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he withheld the same and did not produce on record, more so when the Ops had taken this stand in its reply.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant did not pay even the actual consumption charges of the electricity as stated above.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. 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.

                August 8, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                            

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member