| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 304 of 4.8.2016 Decided on: 5.3.2018 Raghbir Singh Constable No.3097/ Patiala S/o Gurbhal Singh, resident of Q No.4, P.S.Civil Lines, Patiala 98884 06863. …………...Complainant Versus 1. PSPCL, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman. 2. SDO, PSPCL, Commercial Sub Division, Model Town, Patiala. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.K.S.Maan,Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.Nitin Goyal, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Parties. ORDER SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT Sh .Raghbir Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) - The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant being a Govt. employee i.e. constable in Police Deprt, was allotted quarter No.4 in P.S.Civil Lines, Patiala. Earlier the said quarter was allotted in the name of Rajbir Kaur, in whose name electric connection bearing a/c No.P12P120821K A/c No.3000099967 was installed by the OPs. It is stated that after the allotment of the quarter in the name of the complainant, he approached and requested the OPs alongwith the application for transfer of said electric connection in his own name but they did not do so. The OPs continued sending the electricity bills to the complainant which he paid regularly. On 12.5.2016, on the asking of the OPs, the complainant filed the fresh application for transferring the electric connection in his name.The OPs without disclosing any reason changed the old meter with the new one. Thereafter he received bill dated 7.3.2016 to the tune of Rs.17290/- which was higher than the consumption of units. He requested the OPs to inspect the record and to issue the correct bill. However, the OPs issued fresh bill dated 5.5.2016 of Rs.26070/-, adding the amount of the bill dated 7.3.2016. The demand raised by the OPs through the said bills is totally wrong and illegal as the complainant has not used the electricity to that extent. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs to issue the correct bill and also to pay compensation to him.
On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written version. It is stated that the quarter in question was allotted to the complainant on 13.3.2013 but the application for transfer of meter connection was moved on 12.5.2016. It is further stated that a bill dated 8.7.2015 for the period from 13.5.2015 to 11.7.2015 for Rs.990/- with old meter reading 4331 and new reading 4524, was issued to the account holder of connection No.3000099967 but no payment was made.Therafter bill dated 16.9.2015 for the period from 11.7.2015 to 15.9.2015 for Rs.2220/- with old meter reading 4524 and new reading 4719 was issued. An amount of Rs.2210/- was paid by the customer. Thereafter on 3.11.2015, the meter was found to be defective at 4816 units. Later on the bill dated 29.1.2016 for the period from 13.5.2015 to 11.1.2016 was issued with reading 4331 (old) and 4816( new) , total units 485, and new meter reading as 1 to 1456, total units 1455, for an amount of Rs.10020/- after adjusting Rs.2210/-.However, the complainant did not deposit the amount of the said bill. Later on , bill dated 7.3.2016 for the period from 11.1.2016 to 7.3.2016 with old meter reading 1456 and new reading 2443, total units 987, for Rs.17480/- after including the arrear of previous bill was issued . The complainant did not deposit the amount of the said bill.Thereafter bill dated 5.5.2016 for the period from 7.3.2016 to 5.5.2016 for Rs.26070/- with old meter reading 2443 and new reading 3573 , total units 1130, after including the arrear of previous bill was issued . The complainant failed to make the payment of the said bill.Thereafter bill dated 7.7.2016 for the period from 5.5.2016 to 7.7.2016 with old meter reading 3575 and new reading 4540 total units 967, for Rs.33270/-after including the arrears of the previous bill was issued. The bill amount was also not paid by the complainant. Then bill dated 8.9.2016, for the period from 7.7.2016 to 8.9.2016, with old meter reading 4550 and new reading 5473, total units 933,for Rs.40130/- after including the arrear of previous bill was issued. The complainant also did not deposit the amount of the said bill. It is stated that on finding that the meter was defective, the same was changed with the new one and the bills have been issued to the complainant as per rules and regulations. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C10 and closed the evidence and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Jatinder Singh Kanda, SDO, PSPCL, East Commercial, Patiala, alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP10 and closed the evidence of the OPs. - We heave heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is a Govt. employee and the electric meter installed in the Govt. quarter, allotted to him was in the name of Rajbir Kaur, the earlier occupant of the said quarter. He moved an application to the OPs for transfer of the electric meter , installed in the said Govt. quarter, in his name . However, the OPs without informing him and without disclosing any reason had removed the previous electric meter and installed a new electric meter. After the installation a new electric meter, the OPs issued a bill dated 7.3.2016 for Rs.17290/-.Since it was a inflated bill, he approached and requested the OPs for issuing the correct bill as per the electricity consumed by him. However, the OPs instead of doing the needful had issued another bill dated 5.5.2016 of Rs.26070/- by adding an amount of Rs.17290/-.The said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency of service on their part
The ld. counsel for the OPs, has submitted that the quarter in question was allotted to the complainant on 13.3.2013 but he has moved an application for transfer of the meter connection in his name on 12.5.2016. In fact bill dated 8.7.2015 for the period from 13.5.2015 to 11.7.2015 for Rs.990/- was issued to the account holder but no payment was made. Thereafter a bill dated 16.9.2015, for the period from 11.7.2015 to 15.9.2015 for Rs.2220/- was issued. An amount of Rs.2221/- was paid by the consumer. Thereafter, the meter installed in the said quarter was found to be defective and the same was changed. The OPs issued the bills on the basis of actual consumption from time to time but the complainant did not deposit the bills amounts.The OPsthus cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services.
8. It may be stated here that during the pendency of the present complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant had moved an application dated 13.7.2017 for sending the impugned electric meter for checking in the M.E.Lab. This Forum vide order dated 27.9.2017, allowed the said application and accordingly the impugned meter was got checked from the M.E.Lab. The OPs filed the checking report dated 10.10.2017 of the M.E.Lab, the same has been Marked as ‘A’ .As per the said M.E.Lab report, the impugned meter was found OK. The said checking report has not been controverted / challenged by the complainant. Here, it may be stated that once the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was found OK by the M.E.Lab, then there is no occasion for the complainant to challenge the electricity bills, which were sent by the OPs on the basis of actual consumption of electricity. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Consequently, wedismiss thesame without any order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. Therafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room. ANNOUNCED DATED:5.3.2018 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER
ANNOUNCED DATED:5.3.2018 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
