Punjab

Sangrur

CC/633/2014

Sukhpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sanjeev Garg

05 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  633

                                                Instituted on:    27.11.2014

                                                Decided on:       05.03.2015

 

Sukhpal Singh son of Ajaib Singh, resident of Balial Road, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

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

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri Sanjeev Garg, Adv.

For OPs.                   :       Shri Nachhattar Singh, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sukhpal Singh, 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 a consumer of electricity connection bearing account number S41SR620869F, which is running in the name of his real uncle Mukhtiar Singh son of Ram Singh, as such the complainant is using the electricity connection in question and paying the bills of electricity regularly and is a consumer of the OPs.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that on 29.9.2014, he was shocked to receive a notice bearing number 11958 dated 29.9.2014 demanding an amount of Rs.66,350/- from the complainant, which is alleged to be totally illegal and wrong.  Thereafter the complainant immediately approached the OPs and requested to quash the said demand, but the OPs threatened to deposit 30% of the amount immediately, failing which to face disconnection of the electricity connection, as such, to avoid disconnection of the electricity connection, the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- under protest.  Further case of the complainant is that on 28.10.2014, the complainant again received a notice number 2163 dated 28.10.2014 in which the Ops directed the complainant to appear before the Dispute Settlement Committee on 31.10.2014, as such the complainant appeared before the same on 18.11.2014 and without hearing the complainant, the said committee asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount within seven days, failing which electricity connection would be disconnected. It is further averred in the complaint that on 26.11.2014, the complainant received an electricity bill for Rs.57,420/- including Rs.52,920/- on account of sundry charges. As such, the complainant approached the OPs for withdrawal of the same, but nothing happened.  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.66,350/- raised vide notice number 11958 dated 29.9.2014 and further to quash the demand of Rs.52,920/- raised vide bill dated 26.11.2014 and further to refund an amount of Rs.20,000/-, so deposited by the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the matter has already been decided by the Dispute Settlement Committee of PSPCL.  On merits, it is stated that notice number 11958 dated 29.9.2014 has rightly been issued on the basis of checking report number 26/3768 dated 16.6.2014.  It is stated that in fact the connection is in the name of Mukhtiar Singh and the same is being used by the complainant with a sanctioned load of 0.70 KW and it is DS category connection.  The connection in question was checked on 10.12.2013 by JE installation vide checking report number 46095 dated 10.12.2013 and during checking it was found that the complainant was using the electricity for his house as well as for running the shop and was making/assembling cement chogaths.  The checking report was prepared at the spot. After receiving the checking report, the account of the complainant was over hauled and a demand of Rs.39,335/- was raised on account of unauthorised use of electricity  and further the connection of the complainant was changed from DS to NRS and a separate demand of Rs.21,551/- was raised on account of NRS tariff for the period from 1/14 to 5/14. Thereafter the case of the complainant was placed before the Dispute Settlement Committee and was intimated vide letter number 2163 dated 28.10.2014 to appear before the Dispute Settlement Committee on 31.10.2014 and thereafter the complainant was called upon vide letter number 2272 dated 18.11.2014 to deposit balance amount of Rs.46,350/- and the said amount was further added in the bill dated 26.11.2014. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP is denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit 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 notice dated 31.12.2013 and closed evidence.

 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons. 

 

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is using the electricity connection bearing account number S41SR620869 and has been paying the bills regularly, as such, he is a consumer of the OPs being the beneficiary and user of the electricity connection in question.     

 

 

7.             In the present case, the dispute is over the issuance of notice number 11958 dated 29.9.2014 by the OP to the complainant raising a total demand of Rs.66,350/- on the ground that he was using the electricity for his house as well as for assembling cement chogaths.  Whereas the complainant has denied this fact and has contended vehemently that for making cement chogaths there is no requirement of the electricity nor the complainant is doing any work of manufacturing chogaths.   It is an admitted fact that the case of the complainant was also put before the Dispute Settlement Committee  on 18.11.2014, but the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the Dispute Settlement Committee did not consider the case of the complainant and without hearing the complainant, the complainant was told to deposit the money within seven days even without passing any detailed order to this effect.  But, the learned counsel for the OPs has denied this story of the complainant saying that the version of the complainant was fully considered.  We have very carefully perused the whole of the case file, but we find that the OPs have miserably failed to produce on record any sworn affidavit of the checking official, who checked the premises of the complainant nor any affidavit of the official of the Dispute Settlement Committee is on the file to rebut the contention of the complainant that the complainant was not heard before the Dispute Settlement Committee.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the Ops have miserably failed to establish their case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on the file and we further feel that the members of the Dispute Settlement Committee did not hear the case of the complainant. Moreover, the OPs have not produced on record any copy of the proceedings/order of the Dispute Settlement Committee.   In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the demand of Rs.66,350/- raised by the Ops vide notice number 11958 dated 29.09.2014 is not tenable and the same deserves to be quashed, as the OPs have failed to produce any affidavit on record to support the version of the OPs in their written reply. As such, we feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

 

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the notice number 11958 dated 29.09.2014 raising a demand of Rs.66,350/-. We further order the OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 27.11.2014 till realisation. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

 

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

                Pronounced.

                March 5, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member