Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1410

Onkar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Gurmeet Singh

09 Feb 2015

ORDER

1^st Addl. Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.1410 of 2011 

 

                                                            Date of institution: 03.10.2011                                                    

                                                                    Date of Decision : 09.02.2015

 

Onkar singh aged 60 years S/o Manohar Singh R/o Village Kadiana, Tehsil and District Hoshairpur

                                                                   Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala, through it’s Managing Director, the Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sham Chaurasi, Hoshiarpur.
3. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, sub-urban Division, Jalandhar Road, Parbhat chowk, Hoshiarpur.

 

                                       Respondents/Opposite parties.

 

First Appeal against order dated 28.07.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiapur.

Before:-

                        Shri J.S.Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

                        Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

Present:-

                        For the appellant   :     Sh.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate

                   For the respondent:     Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

            This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (the complainant in the complaint) against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), impugning the order dated 28.07.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshairpur, (hereinafter called the ‘District Forum) in  Consumer Complaint No.45 of 2011, vide which, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. 

2.                The brief facts of the case are that Sh. Onkar Singh complainant filed the complaint under the Act against the OPs on the averments that the tubewell connection bearing No. H54 AP29/019-X, was installed in his name at Village Kadiana for the last more than 5 years.  He has been paying the electricity consumption bills for the above tubewell connection regularly, as and when issued by  the OPs.  It was further pleaded in the complaint that the OPs had issued bill dated 20.05.2010 to him, which was duly paid by him vide receipt No.63 dated 07.06.2010. The OPs issued another bill dated 19.07.2010 bearing no.59048 of Rs.-186 in respect of the above tubewell connection.  It has been alleged in the complaint that the officials of the OP were pressurizing him to  transfer the tubewell connection in favour of a person of their choice and were calling upon the complainant to swear an affidavit to this effect. On his refusal  to  do  so , the officials of the OPs illegally and unauthorizedly disconnected his tubewell connection in the month of August 2010 arbitrarily. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party No.2 and 3 for  readdressal of his grievance, but to no avail. The complainant, thus, filed the complaint seeking directions to  the OPs to restore/reconnect the tubewell connection bearing No.  H54 AP29/019-X and to pay  Rs.50,000/- as damages to the complainant.               

3.                The complainant was contested by the OPs by filing written reply. The claim  put-forth by  the complainant in the complaint has been  denied by  the OPs. It was averred in reply by  the OPs that complainant has not being the consumer of the Ops form 30.03.1988 to 27.08.2004,  due to non-payment of the bills for consumption charges for the month of June, July and August, 2004. The electricity connection of complainant was disconnected on  28.08.2004 and DCO No.3/64128 dated 28.08.2004 was issued in this regard.  It was further pleaded by  the OPs that the complainant neither applied for re-connection or fresh electricity connection after its disconnection. Thus, since 28.08.2004, the complainant ceased to be consumer of the opposite parties.  It was further stated by OPs that the computerization of the record of the OPs started in May, 2010 only and the officials of the OPs by mistake loaded the account number of the complainant in computer, which issued the bill dated 20.05.2010 in routine for Rs.684/- and the complainant with mala fide intention deposited the same with the OPs.   Thereafter, no bill was issued to the complainant by the OPs.  The opposite parties would liable to make the refund of Rs.684/-, if it was admitted that the bill dated 20.05.2010 was issued by mistake only and the payment of bill was also received by complainant by mistake.  Second bill dated 17.07.2010 of rupees minus 180 is no bill at all.  It was denied that the disconnection of electricity connection was completed  in the month of August 2010 and in fact, the  supply was disconnected on 28.08.2004. Neither the connection was existing in August, 2010, nor it was disconnected in the month of August, 2010, as alleged by  the complainant. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed for by  the OPs.

          The parties led the evidence in support of their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit of Ex.CW1A, electricity bills- Ex.C2 to Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence.  The opposite parties tendered in evidence the affidavit of Sh. Resham Singh, AE- Ex.R-1, PDCO – Ex. R-2, ledger- Ex.R-3, bill – R-4 and Ex. R-5 and closed their evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments the District Forum dismissed the complaint by virtue of order under challenge in this appeal.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of this case. The learned counsel of the appellant has argued that the opposite party had issued a bill dated 20.05.2010 to the complainant, which was duly paid by him on 07.06.2010, vide receipt of even date Ex.C-4, and other bill dated 17.07.2010, was also issued by the opposite parties. It was further contended that the official of the opposite parties had been pressurizing the complainant to transfer the tubewell  connection in favour of a person  of their choice and were putting pressure upon him to do it. The appellant  swore an affidavit to this effect, vide Ex.CW1/A on the record. It was further argued that the tubewell connection of the complainant was disconnected in the month of August, 2010 unauthorizedly bythe opposite parties.  On the other hand, the  learned counsel of the OPs has argued that due to the non payment of the bills of consumption charges for the months of June, July and August 2004, the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 28.08.2004, vide DCO No. 3/64128 dated 28.08.2004 Ex.R2. He did not apply for re-connection or new connection thereof thereafter till this date. The contention is that the  computerization of record of opposite parties started in May 2010 and by mistake the account number of the complainant was loaded in  the system and bill dated 20.05.2010 was issued in routine way for Rs.684/- and the complainant deposited the amount of said bill Ex-C3, as relied upon by  the complainant  which is not a bill for consumption of electricity charges, but is the result of mistake only. Even this bill Ex.C-3, merely shows minus Rs.186/-, as per the calculation of the computer. The correct finding were recorded by the District Forum, in this case by reaching the conclusion that complainant ceased to be a consumer of OPs since 2004, when his electricity connection was disconnected and the original pass book was return to him after receiving the photocopy of the pass book.

5.             We have come to the conclusion that the electric connection bearing No. H54 AP29/0197-X, was installed by the opposite parties in the name of Onkar Singh having connected load of 3 BHP under AP category.  The plea of the opposite parties is that due to non-payment of the bills for the month of June, July and August 2004 by  the complainant, his electric connection was disconnected on 28.08.2004; DCO No. 3/64128 dated 28.08.2004 was issued by the opposite parties about it. On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record the affidavit Ex-CW1/A, in which he deposed in para-4 that he never defaulted in the payment of the electricity bills, as alleged by  the opposite parties and his connection continued uptill the month  of August 2010.

6.     From perusal of the record, it is shown that the OP issued the bill dated 20.05.2010 for the period of 01.03.2010 to 30.04.2010 for Rs.684/- Ex-C2. The relevant portion of the bill is reproduced as under.

						TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE
Sundry Charges	Sundry allowances	Arrears	Tariff as per PESRS	Subsidy by Punjab Govt.	Net Amt. payable	Before due date	Surcharge	After due date
198	6011	6197	1668	1365	300	684	50	734

 

7.     The complainant deposited the bill of Rs.684/- vide receipt no.63 dated 07.06.2010, which is proved on record vide Ex-C4. The opposite parties also issued another bill dated 19.07.2010 as Ex-C3 for the amount minus Rs.186/-.

8.             Thus plea taken by the opposite parties that the computerization of record started in the month of May 2010.  The officials by mistake loaded the account number of the complainant in computer, which issued the bill dated 20.05.2010 in a routine  manner for Rs.684/-. The opposite parties placed on record Ex.R2 dated 28.08.2004, in which it is mentioned that the electric connection of the complainant was disconnected on 28.08.2004,

9.             From the entire factual matrix of the case, it is  proved that the electricity connection of the complainant was actually disconnected in the year 2004, vide Ex.R-2 dated 28.08.2004 on the record. There is also a noting on it that electricity tubewell connection has been disconnected. The complainant has not deposited any fee with the OPs for restoration of disconnected electricity connection at any time thereafter. There is nothing on the record to prove that complainant has been paying the consumption charges till the issuance of Ex.C-2 on 20.05.2010 and Ex.C-3. If the compliant has been using this connection, then he must have been paying the consumption charges thereof from the year 2004 to 2010 to the OPs.  The plea of the OPs is credible that due to computerization of record in the year 2010, the account Number of the complainant was recorded due to mistake only and C-2 and C-3 were mistakenly issued to the complainant. We accept this plea of the OPs. The order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint of the complainant is justified on account of cessation of complainant, as consumer of the OPs since 2004. We find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.

10.           The order in this was reserved and the order be now communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the case.     

 

                                                                                  (J.S.Klar)

                                                               Presiding Judicial Member

February 09, 2015                                        (Vinod Kumar Gupta)

PK                                                                                Member