Punjab

Faridkot

CC/21/59

Rajesh Kataria - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh Virdi

19 Apr 2023

ORDER

.DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

                                                 C.C. No :                   59 of 2021

        Date of Institution :   19.03.2021

        Date of Decision :     19.04.2023

Rajesh Kataria aged about 48 years son of Mulakh Raj, resident of House No.B-II-105, Jatinder Chowk, Faridkot, District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Senior Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Faridkot.
3. S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Opposite Khalsa School, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Quorum: Smt Priti Malhotra, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

                Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Mohan Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

ORDER

(Priti Malhotra, President)

                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Punjab State

cc no.-59 of 2021

Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to quash the illegal demand of Rs.1,51,460/-raised by them as per bill dated 08.03.2021 in respect of account no.F31BL180355Yand for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is a tenant and electric connection in question being used by him for running his shop, is in the name of President, SSBP Khalsa School from whom he has taken shop on rent and he has been paying all the bills as and when received and nothing on account of consumption charges is due towards him. It is submitted that complainant received a bill dated 08.03.2021 for Rs.1,64,370/- in which amount of Rs.1,51,460/-is charged as sundry charges. It is alleged that this amount is very huge and it is demanded without giving any proper notice as per mandatory provisions of PSPCL. It is further submitted that consumption of complainant never exceeded Rs.25,000/- and this huge amount is added in bill on account of sundry charge whereas total consumption charges are Rs.9,715/-. Complainant is not liable to pay this huge amount of Rs.1,51,460/-.

 

cc no.-59 of 2021

 Complainant approached OPs and made several requests to them to withdraw this illegal demand, but all in vain. OPs did not do anything needful to redress the grievance of complainant and paid no heed to his genuine requests. It amounts to deficiency in service and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for rendering deficient services. He has prayed for directing OPs to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,151,460/-raised vide bill dated 08.03.2021 and has also prayed for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 22.03.2021, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                         On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties appeared in the Commission through their counsel and filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. ld counsel for OPs brought before this

 

cc no.-59 of 2021

Commission that complainant took two shops from the President of Khalsa School where two electric connections bearing account no.BL-18/355 and BL-18/356 were installed. Due to non payment of bill amount, connection no. BL-18/356 was disconnected. Complainant demolished the wall between two shops and himself converted them into one shop and started using load of both the shops in account no. BL-18/355Y new no.3000436351. As per OPs defaulting amount of connection no. BL-18/356 was charged to the account of President, Khalsa School who informed answering OP vide letter no.452 dt 18.01.2021 that their school has some shops which they have given on rent. They have given two shops to Rajesh Kataria and in these shops two electric connections bearing no.BL 18/355 and BL 18/356 were installed. Complainant demolished the wall between two shops and made a single shop and he kept using both the electric connections installed there, but due to non payment of electric connection bearing no.BL 18/356, his meter was disconnected and pending amount was wrongly charged to the connection no3000436347 which is installed in the premises of Khalsa School in the name of President. It was required to be charged to the second connection of complainant i.e BL-18 355 being used by

cc no.-59 of 2021

him and thus, liability to pay the outstanding amount is on account holder no. BL-18/355Y and thereafter, OPs charged this amount to complainant through sundry charge and allowance item no.248/8011. This amount has been rightly charged as after removing the wall, complainant converted the two shops into one shop and now, he is liable to pay the amount. All bills pertaining to a/c no BL-18/356 were issued and it is in the constructive knowledge of complainant that defaulting amount is outstanding. He did not pay the bills intentionally and therefore, due to non payment of bills, his connection was disconnected. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                             Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 3 and closed the same.

6                            To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukhbir Singh

 

cc no.-59 of 2021

Sandhu AE, PSPCL as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-32 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                     We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the affidavits, evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                                    From the careful perusal of documents and evidence placed on record and after going through the arguments advanced by ld counsel for respective parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he is taken a shop on rent and he received a bill dated 08.03.2021 for meter installed at his shop for Rs.1,64,370/- in which Rs.1,51,460/-are charged as sundry charges, which is very excessive and complainant is not liable to pay the same. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs have not withdrawn the said huge amount, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, ld counsel for OPs brought before the Commission that complainant took two shops on rent where two separate electric meters bearing no. BL-18/355 and BL-18/356 were installed were installed. Complainant used both the connections and intentionally did not pay the bill in respect of connection no. BL-

cc no.-59 of 2021

18/356  and due to non payment, it was disconnected. Complainant demolished the wall between two shops and made there a single shop. Amount charged to complainant vide bill dated 08.03.2021 pertains to defaulting amount of connection no. BL-18/356 and complainant is liable to pay the same because he has used the electricity consumption for this connection. This amount has been rightly charged as after removing the wall, complainant converted the two shops into one shop and now, he is liable to pay the amount. All bills pertaining to a/c no BL-18/356 were issued and had sufficient knowledge that consumption charges in respect of a/c no BL-18/356 were due and OPs have every right to recover the same.

9                                From the careful perusal of bills Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-25 there remains no doubt that bills in respect of a/c no BL-18/356 were sent  to complainant, but complainant did not bother to pay the same and when OPs charged this amount through bill dated 08.03.2021, complainant filed the present complaint to escape the liability of paying the outstanding amount. It is moral duty to pay the bills for power consumed and Ops’ right to recover this amount is, completely genuine. OPs have placed on record sufficient and cogent

 

cc no.-59 of 2021

evidence to prove their version and all documents brought before the Commission are authentic and are beyond any doubt.

10                                Therefore, from the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs, rather complainant is liable to pay the consumption charges in respect of a/c no BL-18/356. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of  order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Commission

Dated : 19.04.2023

                                      

  

         Member                       Member                                   President

        (Vishav Kant Garg)     (Param Pal Kaur)     (Priti Malhotra)