DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  620

                                                Instituted on:    18.10.2016

                                                Decided on:       14.03.2017

Pardeep Kumar Tiwari S/o Sh. Bhagat Ram R/O Kishan Pura, Near Samadh Pur Baba, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its M.D.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer (SDO), P.S.P.C.L. City Sub Division, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri G.S.Sibia, Advocate.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Pardeep Kumar Tiwari,  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 obtained one domestic electricity connection from the Ops on 1.6.2011 bearing account number S43KP613201M. It is further stated that the complainant has been using the electricity connection in question and paying the bills regularly to the OPs. In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.17,970/- in which an amount of Rs,.17,792/- has been added on account of sundry charges, which are said to be wrong and illegal and after receiving the bill in question, the complainant approached the Ops for withdrawal of the excess amount and to charge the bill as per the actual consumption, but nothing happened. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant made a representation to the Ops to put his case before the Dispute Settlement Committee, so that the matter be amicably solved and as such deposited an amount of Rs.5513/- being the part payment.  But, when nothing effective took place before the DSC, then the Ops again sent a bill dated 7.10.2016 demanding the balance amount of Rs.12,227/- on account of sundry charges, whereas the meter of the complainant was quite OK and the demand is said to be wrong and illegal. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw/quash the illegal demand of sundry charges of Rs.12,277/- raised in bill dated 7.10.2016 and to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.5538/- so deposited with the Ops and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is admitted that the connection in question is running in the name of the complainant, as such he is a consumer of the OPs. It is further stated that the connection of the complainant was checked on 17.7.2015 and found that the complainant is running the electricity meter in his dairy and using the same for commercial purpose, as such the connection was treated as CS instead of DS.  After checking the connection, the Ops sent notice to the complainant to deposit sundry charges, which demand is said to be quite legal and genuine.  It is stated that the complainant had approached the DSC for settlement of the claim, but the complainant has concocted a false story that he was not heard in the DSC, whereas due and proper opportunity was given to the complainant and the demand was found to be quite legal and justified.  As such, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 copies of bills, Ex.C-4 copy of letter by the complainant and Ex.C-5 copy of letter and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced  Ex.OP/1 copy of checking report, Ex.OP-2 copy of audit report, Ex.OP/3 copy of DSC order, Ex.OP-4 copy of bill dated 5.6.2016 and Ex.OP-5 copy of bill dated 7.10.2016 and Ex.OP-6 affidavit 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 acceptance, for these reasons.

5.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact that the connection in question is running in the name of the complainant, as such, he is a consumer of the OPs under the connection in question. In the present case the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.17,970/-, whereby the Ops have demanded an amount of Rs.17,792/- on account of sundry charges as the Ops changed the connection from the DS supply to CS supply as the complainant was using the connection for dairy purpose, which is a commercial one, which is said to be wrong and illegal by the complainant, as it is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that no checking was ever done by the Ops nor the connection in question was used for commercial purpose as alleged by the Ops. We have also perused the copy of checking report dated 17.7.2015, Ex.OP-1 and a bare perusal it nowhere reveals that the checking was ever conducted in the presence of the complainant, nor it bears the signatures of the complainant nor it bears the signature of any checking official. Further there is nothing mentioned about the official who checked the connection in question, more so when it is written in the reply as well as in the affidavit Ex.OP-6  “....the opposite parties have checked the electricity connection of the complainant on 17-0702-15 and found that the complainant is running the electricity meter in his Dairy and used the same for commercial purpose and as such, the connection be treated as CS instead of DS....”  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the checking report does not bear the signature of any official. Further regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the point that the complainant though approached the DSC for settlement of the claim, but he was not heard.  The Ops have produced nothing on record to show that he was properly heard and was called to put appearance before the DSC. As such, we are of the considered opinion that since the Ops have failed to establish the checking report on record to be authentic, we feel that the complaint is fully maintainable before this Forum.

6.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.17,792/- raised against the complainant vide bill dated  05.06.2016, Ex.C-2.  The Ops are further directed to refund to the complainant the so deposited amount of Rs.5513/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.         

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

                Pronounced.

                March 14, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member