DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.576 of 20-12-2010 Decided on 21-04-2011
Mohinder Sngh, aged about 65 years, son of Sh.Natha Singh, resident of H.No.1141, Ahata Niaz Mohhamad, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman. SDO/AEE, Punjab State power Corporation Ltd., Cantt. Sub Division, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.R.D.Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding electricity connection for the last many years. In the month of January 2010, the meter of the complainant became dead and this matter was brought into the notice of the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application on 10.08.2010 with the opposite parties who deputed J.E. to check the working of the meter. The J.E. made a report on 16.08.2010 that the meter is dead stop even then the meter is not replaced till date. The opposite parties issued a bill dated 19.09.2010 for a sum of Rs.9,460/- in which Rs.8,851/- has been shown as Sundry charges. When, the complainant approached the opposite parties to get the information regarding this amount,they were denied to give any information /explanation. The complainant has alleged that even no supplementary notice ever issued regarding the alleged amount of Rs.8,851/-. Previously, the complainant filed a complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat for getting the relief but the same was withdrawn with the permission to file fresh one in the proper Court on 16.12.2010. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint with prayer to seek directions to the opposite parties not to recover the alleged amount of Rs.8,851/- and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the connection No.VM/85/0143F has been issued in the name of Mohinder Singh for NRS purposes with sanctioned load of 6.89 KW but the complainant did not deposit the bills regularly. The opposite parties have further pleaded that they did not charge excessive amount against the due amount. The demand has been made on the basis of monthly minimum charges in some bills and some bills have been issued on load basis. The dead meter of the complainant was not replaced because the new meter was not available at that time and now it has been changed as it has been shown in the bill of December 2010. The opposite parties have raised a demand on the basis of rules and regulations of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The bill for the month of 19.09.2010 has been issued rightly in which Rs.8,851/- has been shown in the Sundry charges. The complainant filed an application for the deduction of Rs.8,851/- which was accepted and the amount of Rs.8,851/- has been deducted in the bill dated 19.09.2010. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The complainant is holding electric connection bearing No. VM/85/0143F in his name. The meter of the complainant became dead in the month of January 2010. The matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties. The said meter is installed in the street. When the dead meter was not replaced by the opposite parties, the complainant filed an application dated 10.08.2010 with the opposite parties who deputed J.E. to check the working of the meter. He made a report on 16.08.2010 that the meter is dead stop even then the meter is not replaced till date whereas it is to be changed within 7 days otherwise the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation Rs.100/- per day. The opposite parties issued a bill dated 19.09.2010 for a sum of Rs.9,460/- in which Rs.8,851/- has been shown as Sundry charges without giving any explanation. When, the complainant approached the opposite parties to get the information regarding this amount, they denied any information/explanation. The opposite parties were requested to correct the bill dated 19.07.2010 of Rs.9,460/- and to refund the excess amount charged by the opposite parties from the previous bills but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Earlier, the complainant filed a complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat for getting the relief but the same was withdrawn with the permission to file fresh one in the proper Court on 16.12.2010 and the same was not decided on merit. The bills were issued to the complainant on minimum monthly charges and load basis. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that the connection bearing No.VM/85/0143F has been issued in the name of Mohinder Singh for NRS purposes and the sanctioned load is of 6.89 KW. The complainant deposited the bills on minimum monthly charges and load basis but he did not pay the bills regularly. The demand has been made on the basis of monthly minimum charges in some bills and some bills have been issued on load basis. The meter of the complainant became defective in the month of January 2010. The complainant is fully responsible to care the meter even it has been installed in the street. The dead meter was not replaced because the new meter was not available at that time and when it was changed, the same is shown in the bill of December 2010. The opposite parties have admitted that the J.E. made a report regarding the dead stop of the working of the meter. The amount which has been charged from the complainant is on the basis of rules and regulations of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The bill for the month of 19.09.2010 has been rightly issued in which Rs.8,851/- has been shown in the Sundry charges. After receiving the bill, the complainant filed an application for the deduction of Rs.8,851/- which was accepted and the amount of Rs.8,851/- has been deducted in that bill i.e. 19.09.2010. The complainant is not entitled to get the refund of any amount from the previous bills which have been deposited by him without any protest. 7. The bills placed on file from Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8 show that the status of the meter is defective. Further, a perusal of Ex.R-2 shows that since 04/2009, the reading on the meter is 773 and the status was OK till 12/2009 and the bills are being sent on MMC basis. The meter is showing 'D' code since 12/2009 and it remained defective till 10/2010. The complainant had written a letter Ex.C-10 for changing his meter but despite his request, the meter has not been changed for approximately 4 months whereas as per rules of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., the opposite parties have to change the meter within 7 days from the receipt of reqeust. The J.E. admitted that the meter became defective in the month of January 2009. When the meter is defective, the opposite parties are duty bound to change the meter within stipulated time but they have failed to change the meter till 12/2010. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation as the meter has been changed after the lapse of 4 months. The account of the complainant has already been overhauled and the demanded amount deducted from the bill dated 19.09.2010, so no such direction can be given for quashing the demand. Compliance with regard to cost and compensation be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 21-04-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
