Punjab

Sangrur

CC/692/2015

Nirmala Khanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rohit Jain

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

               

                                                Complaint No.  692

                                                Instituted on:    21.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       21.04.2016

 

Nirmala Khanna aged about 73 years widow of Shri Jawahar Lal Khanna, resident of House No.96, J.P. Nagar, Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

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

2.     AEE, SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, City Sangrur, Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

For Opposite parties         :       Shri Jatinder Verma, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Nirmala Khanna, 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 a consumer of the OPs by getting installed a domestic electricity connection bearing account number S43JP150541M with a sanctioned load of 10.26 KW. The complainant has further averred that he has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the OPs.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that she received a bill dated 23.7.2013 for Rs.45,580/- for 6177 units, as such, the son of the complainant approached the OP number 2 and requested to look into the matter as the bill in question was on the higher side, but the OP number 2 got the bill deposited from the complainant under protest.  Thereafter, the complainant received a bill dated 29.8.2013 for Rs.34,400/- for 1760 units, wherein an amount of Rs.30,097/- were demanded on account of balance of current financial year, as such, the complainant again approached the OP number 2, who asked to deposit Rs.12,403/- which were deposited with the OP number 2.  Again thereafter the complainant received a bill dated 1.11.2013 for Rs.62,430/- for 1643 units, out of which Rs.11,468/- were demanded on account of balance of last financial year and Rs.54,756/- were demanded on account of balance of last financial year.  The complainant again approached the OPs for withdrawal of the excess amount, but all in vain.  Further case of the complainant is that the OPs changed the above said meter on 11.7.2013 on the application of the complainant and new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant and the consumption upto 11.7.2014 was 889 units.  It is further averred that in November, 2014, the said meter was burnt due to sparking on the main line, as such, the complainant moved an application dated 15.11.2014 for change of meter and deposited Rs.1910/- with the Ops and the same was changed with new one.  Further case of the complainant is that he received a bill dated 14.7.2015 for Rs.40,330/- out of which Rs.21,812/- were demanded on account of balance of current financial year and the complainant approached the OP number 2 and requested to withdraw the illegal demand and to issue fresh bill on consumption basis, but all in vain.  It is further averred that the OPs also filed an application to the OPs for supply of the ME laboratory report of the meter in question, but the same was also not supplied.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the illegal demand made through various bills and further to refund the amount charged from the complainant due to fast running of the meter and further claimed compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops as the said connection was in the name of Shri Jawahar Lal and the complainant never got the connection transferred in her name, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum as the refund of Rs.64,406/- vide SCA number 50/21/12 was given to the complainant in the bill of June, 2014 and second refund of Rs.42,890/- vide SCA number 3/73/14 was given in the bill for the month of July, 2015.  On merits, it is admitted that the connection in question is running in the name of Jawahar Lal.  Further it is admitted that the bill dated 23.7.2013 for Rs.45,580/- for 6177 units was issued to the complainant, which was duly deposited by the complainant.  It is further stated that the bill dated 29.8.2013 was issued to the complainant for Rs.34,482/- on average basis due to the change of the meter and six average bills from the month of August, 2013 to the month of March, 2014 were taken, as the result of the challenged meter was pending. It is  further averred that after the issuance of bill dated 29.8.2013, the complainant approached the Ops and requested to deposit the amount of consumption consumed by the new meter and on the request o the complainant the amount of Rs.12,405/- was got deposited. It has been further averred that as per the record of the Ops the bill for the month of April, 2014 was issued under the code (O) and refund of Rs.64,406/- has been given in the bill for the month June, 2014 vide SCA number 50/21/12 and thereafter the account of the complainant was overhauled as per the instructions of the Ops and the difference of the amount of Rs.42,890/- has already been given to the complainant. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-28 copies of bills, Ex.C-29 copy of letter dated 5.7.2013, Ex.C-30 copy of letter dated 15.11.2014, Ex.C-31 copy of receipt, Ex.C-32 copy of letter dated 18.6.2015, Ex.C-33 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of MCO, Ex.OP-3 copy of challan dated 6.6.2014, Ex.OP-4 copy of details, Ex.OP-5 and Ex.OP-6 copies of sundry register, Ex.OP-7 copy of detail, Ex.OP-8 copy of detail, Ex.OP-9 copy of sundry register, Ex.OP-10 to Ex.Op-22 copies of billing ledgers and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that connection in question is in the name of husband of the complainant Shri Jawahar Lal Khanna and has been using the connection and paying the electricity bills, as such, we feel that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops being the beneficiary and owner in possession of the electricity connection in question.

 

7.             In the present case, the complainant has alleged that the Ops have charged excess amount from her in various bills including the bill dated 23.7.2013 to 7.5.2015 on account of ‘balance of current financial year’ and ‘balance of previous financial year’ and has sought the refund of the amount so recovered in excess by the Ops.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the account of the complainant has already been overhauled and a refund/adjustment of Rs.64,406/- has already been given in the bill for the month of June, 2014 vide SCA number 50/21/12 and further refund of an amount of Rs.42,980/- has already been given to the complainant in the  month of July, 2015.  But, the fact that the Ops have given the adjustment/refund of an amount of Rs.42,980/- has not been disclosed by the complainant in the complaint as well as in the affidavit nor the complainant has filed any rejoinder/replication to state this fact.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why she withheld such a material fact/information from this Forum.  The Ops have also produced on record the detailed calculation sheet Ex.OP-8 on record to show all the details including refund of Rs.64,406/- and another refund of Rs.42,890/- to the complainant.   In the present case, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to provide to the complainant complete details of accounts of the electricity connection in question  for the period from 23.7.2013 to 31.7.2015.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to provide to the complainant complete details of accounts of the electricity connection in question for the period from 23.7.2013 to 31.7.2015.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 21, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                            (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                 Member

                                                       

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member