Punjab

Sangrur

CC/768/2015

Puneet Duggal - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Vineet Duggal

12 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  768

                                                Instituted on:    29.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       12.05.2016

 

Puneet Duggal aged about 33 years son of Late Balbir Chand Duggal, resident of Bhalla Enclave, Behind Kamal Palace, College Road, Sangrur.

                                                                                                                                        ..Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     Punjab State Power Supply Corporation Limited through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory, The Mall, Patiala.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division, Sangrur.

                                                                                                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Vineet Duggal, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Puneet Duggal, 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 the consumer of electricity connection bearing account number S43GT430077X which has been installed the house of the complainant and the complainant has been paying the regular bills and nothing is due against him. It has been further averred that previous meter was not working properly and as such the complainant moved an application to the Ops and requested to replace the meter and as such the Ops replaced the meter and the Ops checked the meter of the complainant in the ME laboratory.  Further case of the complainant is that on 2.12.2014, the complainant received a bill dated 2.12.2014 whereby the Ops demanded an amount of Rs.5658/- on account of sundry charges, which is said to be wrong and illegal. The complainant as such filed a complaint before this Forum, wherein the Ops appeared and made a statement that they will not raise the demand on account of sundry charges and on the statement of the OPs, this Forum ordered “Learned counsel for the parties have made their statements in view of which the present complaint is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the complainant to file fresh, if required”.  Further case of the complainant is that on 22.7.2015, the complainant was shocked to receive a notice from the Ops, in which the OPs demand the sundry charges for the period 6/2014, which the complainant requested the Ops to withdraw the demand, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to quash the demand of Rs.5658/- on account of sundry charges vide letter dated 22.7.2015 and further directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses.  

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the Ops have dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs. It is further averred that the old meter of the complainant became defective and the same was changed through MCO and later on meter was got checked in  the ME laboratory. It has been admitted that the meter of the complainant became defective and the same was changed through MCO number 51043/191 dated 4.4.2014. Bill dated 2.5.2014 was issued to the complainant on average basis with ‘D’ code. However, the next bill dated 26.5.2015 was issued to the complainant for the period of 24 days on average basis with ‘C’ code as the meter was already changed. New reading recorded in this bill was 816 units. That thereafter inadvertently the next bill dated 4.7.2014 was issued on average basis showing bill status C/Avg for the period of 39 days for 1141 units, whereas new consumption was recorded as 2638 units in the bill and after deducting last reading of 816, total consumption comes out to be 1822 units, this in this way, there was a different of 681 units, which was payable by the complainant, thereafter internal audit party of the Ops checked the account of the complainant and an amount of Rs.5658/- was found payable by the complainant on account of difference of actual consumption i.e. 681 units. It is further admitted that thereafter the Ops issued a notice number 1881 dated 22.7.2015 demanding an amount of Rs.5658/- from the complainant.  It is stated that the amount raised is genuine one and is recoverable from the complainant as per rules.  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 copy of letter dated 22.7.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of bill receipt, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 copies of bills, Ex.C-7 copy of order dated 24.3.2015, Ex.C-8 copy of reply dated 28.10.2015 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit, Ex.Op/2 copy of MCO, Ex.OP/3 to Ex.OP/5 copies of ledger 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 dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the consumer of electricity connection in question. In the present case, the dispute is over the issuance of notice number 1281 dated 22.7.2015 raising a demand of Rs.5658/- on account of difference of consumption of 681 units which were earlier not charged from the complainant.  It is on the record that inadvertently the next bill dated 4.7.2014 was issued on average basis showing bill status C/Avg for the period of 39 days for 1141 units, whereas new consumption was recorded as 2638 units in the bill and after deducting last reading of 816, total consumption comes out to be 1822 units, as such, a difference of 681 units was payable by the complainant, as such, the amount of Rs.5658/- was charged as sundry charges in bill dated 2.12.2014. Ex.C-7 is the copy of order dated 24.3.2015 passed in the complaint number 644 dated 4.12.2014, whereby the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint, if required. It is worth mentioning here that in the statement dated 24.3.2015, the learned counsel for the complainant had stated that if the Ops issues new notice, then he will file the fresh complaint against the Ops.   Ex.OP-1 is the affidavit of Er. Hem Raj JE, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that an amount of Rs.5658/- was actually due for consumption of 681 units against the complainant, which were never paid by the complainant. Thus, in the circumstances, it is clear that the Ops have rightly demanded the amount of Rs.5658/- on account of difference of 681 units from the complainant on account of actual consumption of the electricity. 

 

16.           In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 12, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                 Member

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member