BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/10/1054 of 8.12.2010 Decided on: 29.9.2011 Manga Ram alias Manga Singh son of Sh.Dhola Ram alias Lachhman Singh resident of village Aman Nagar, Tehsil and District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office, The Mall, Patiala, through its Managing Director/Director. 2. The S.D.O./A.E.E. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Balbera, Tehsil and District Patiala. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: None For opposite parties: Sh.Harjit Singh , Advocate ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT The complainant is a consumer of the domestic electricity connection bearing account No.P44AN110475K. He belongs to Balmiki community which is a scheduled caste. 2. The Punjab Government under a policy has exempted the members of the schedule caste from paying the charges of the electricity and therefore, the ops have got no right to claim the consumption charges of electricity from the complainant. 3. The ops issued the bills of the electricity for the period qua the units consumed and the amounts given as under:- Sr.No. Period Units Amount 1. 22.11.2009 to 22.1.2010 98 Rs.1.00 2. 19.5.2010 to 20.7.2010 200 Rs.2020/- 3. 20.7.2010 to 18.9.2010 900 Rs.5690/- 4. 18.9.2010 to 18.11.2010 300 Rs.6488/- 4. The complainant approached op no.2 and disclosed that he being a member of the schedule caste was not liable to pay the aforesaid charges regarding the consumption of the electricity as per the policy of the Punjab Government but who expressed his ignorance about any policy of the Govt and rather threatened the complainant that in case he failed to deposit the charges the supply will be disconnected permanently. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to withdraw the aforesaid electricity bills and to provide him the electricity free of charges; to award him the compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops and to pay him Rs.5000/- as costs of the complaint. 5. On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that there is no policy formed by the Punjab Govt. having exempted the members of the schedule caste from paying the charges of the electricity. As a matter of fact only 200 units of the electricity consumption are exempted from being charged from weaker section of the society and the charges beyond 200 units are recoverable under the rules. The bills were issued to the complainant as per the rules of the PSPCL. The complainant had not paid any amount of the bills raised after the month of March/2011 till the date of the filing of the written statement. All the bills annexed with the complaint pertain to the arrears of the previous bills, the complainant having ignored to pay the same intentionally. The complainant never approached op no.2.He is deliberately avoding the payment of the electricity bills. Ops are very much within their right to disconnect the supply to the electricity connection of the complainant in case the bills are not deposited in time. Ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. 6. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence,Ex.C1, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents,Exs.C2 to C7 and his learned counsel closed evidence. 7. On the other hand, on behalf of the ops their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Er.P.S.Bansal,alongwith document,Ex.R2 and closed their evidence. 8. The ops filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the ops none having appeared on behalf of the complainant and gone through the evidence on record. 9. Ex.C3, is the copy of the schedule caste certificate to have been issued by the Tehsildar,Patiala to the effect that Manga Singh S/o Lachhman Singh R/o village Aman Nagar Tehsil and District Patiala, belongs to Balkimi caste which has been recognized as scheduled caste as per, “The Constitution(Scheduled Castes) Order,1950”. 10. The complainant has produced,Ex.C4 to C7, the photo copies of the bills dated 22.1.2010 for the consumption of 98 units for the period 22.11.2009 to 22.1.2010, dated 20.7.2010 for the consumption of 200 units for the period 19.5.2010 to 20.7.2010, dated 18.9.2010 for the consumption of 900 units for the period 20.7.2010 to 18.9.2010 and dated 18.11.2010 for the consumption of 300 units for the period 18.9.2010 to 18.11.2010 respectively and in every bill there is a reference of the exemption of the units from being charged from the complainant. In Ex.C4, there is exemption of 98 units, the payable units being 98 and therefore, nothing was payable. In Ex.C5, there is an exemption of 200 units, the bill itself being for 200 units. The bill however, contained the arrear of Rs.2022/- of the previous period. In Ex.C6, there is an exemption of 200 units, the bill having been issued for 900 units. There was however, an arrear of Rs.5053/- of the previous period. Similarly in Ex.C7, there is an exemption of 203 units, the consumption being of 300 units. There was however, an arrear of Rs.6014/- of the previous period. It was submitted by S.Harjit Singh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant has not been able to show any policy to have been framed by the State Government whereby a member of the schedules caste is exempted from depositing the charges of the electricity. Rather, the learned counsel for the ops made a reference to Ex.R2, the copy of the CC No.8/2010 dated 17.2.2010 issued by then Punjab State Electricity Board vide memo no.7668/8468 dated 17.2.2010 whereby it was decided to grant free electricity instead of 200 units, 100 units per month in respect of the consumers belonging to SC category having domestic connection of 1000 Watts in accordance with the decision taken by the Cabinet of the State Government on 22.1.2010. 11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum that he was given the exemption of the prescribed units in the bills and he was liable to pay the amount of the electricity bills not deposited by him and which were being shown as arrear in the bills,Exs.C5,C6 and C7. 12. We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and he suppressed the factum that he was being the exemption from making the payment of the electricity upto 100 units per month but he had not been depositing the charges of the electricity bills and the arrears were being reflected in the bills,Exs.C5,C6 and C7. The complainant is bound to deposit the arrears. There does not appear any deficiency of service on the part of the ops and accordingly the complaint is hereby dismissed. Pronounced. Dated:29.9.2011 Neelam Gupta Amarjit Singh Dhindsa D.R.Arora Member Member President
| | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. D.R.Arora, PRESIDENT | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | | 
