Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/56

Suman Bharti - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Avtar Krishan

13 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :                  56 of 2019

Date of Institution :         11.03.2019

Date of Decision :            13.11.2019

 

Suman Bharti aged about 53 years wife of Vinod Kumar resident of Jalaleana Road, Des Raj Basti, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                                            

                                                                                           ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation  Ltd, Sub Division Kotkapura through its Assistant Executive Engineer, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, The Mall Road, Patiala through its Chairman cum Managing Director.

            .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

              Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Avtar Krishan, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

cc no.- 56 of 2019

                                                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to correct the bills issued for the period from16.02.2018 to 12.02.2019 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- to complainant.

2                                      Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased her house from Rajesh Kumar on 17.01.2012 and since then, he has been using the domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. 3001080300 running in his premises. It is submitted that complainant has been paying all the bills regularly without any delay and nothing on account of consumption charges is outstanding against her. Further submitted that being member of scheduled caste category, complainant is entitled for concession as per Policy of Government, but for the period from 16.02.2018 to 12.02.2019, complainant has been receiving bills for excessive amount showing her consumption more than actually used by her and without giving her any concession. Complainant paid the bill the for the period from 16.02.2018 to 20.04.2018 under protest and bills for the remaining period are not paid by her. On receiving the said bills , complainant approached Ops with request to correct the same, but all in vain, rather OPs threatened to disconnect her electric connection if she fails to clear the all amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in

cc no.- 56 of 2019

service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which she has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the impugned bills and prayed to pay Rs.50,000/- as 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 13.03.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                           On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections OPs have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the dispute between the parties, but complainant has not put her case before such committee and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that bills dated 20.04.2018, 16.06.2018, 9.08.2018, 15.10.2018, 12.02.2019 and 7.06.2019 for Rs.6,784/-, 8,175/-, 10,201/-, 3,563/-, 23,572/- respectively due for the period from 16.02.2018 to 12.04.2019 is still outstanding against complainant and have not been paid by her in time and amount has been forwarded in next bills. It is averred that earlier, complainant

cc no.- 56 of 2019

was not entitled for any concession as her consumption was more than 3000 units in a year, but now, as per changed policy of government, necessary concession for Rs.20,017/-for the entire period during which no concession was given, has been given to complainant. Complainant is not entitled for any other relief. There is no need to correct the bills and current bill has been sent to her. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

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-12 and documents Ex C-1 to 11 and closed the same.

6                                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld counsel for opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh, S.D.O., PSPCL, Sub Urban, Kotkapura Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-8 and closed the evidence.

7                                                We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

8                                                     From the careful perusal of record and evidence and record placed on record by respective parties, it is observed

cc no.- 56 of 2019

that case of the complainant is that she has a domestic electric connection issued by OPs in her house and she was paying all the bills regularly but for the period from 16.02.2018 to 12.02.2019, she has been receiving excessive bills for power consumption without giving her any concession under Schedule Case Category and she has not paid the bills under protest. She approached OPs several times with request to rectify the bills for said period of 16.02.2018 to 12.02.2019 and to give her requisite concession, but OPs have not corrected the same, rather threatened to disconnect her electric connection if she fails to pay the entire bills in time, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. In reply, counsel for OPs brought before the Forum that as per policy of government, complainant was not entitled for any concession as her consumption was more than 3000 units in a year, but now, according to changed policy of government requisite concession of Rs.20,017/- has been given to her for the entire period during which concession was not granted to her. To prove his version, ld counsel for OPs has placed on record documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-7 copies of bills that clearly show that concession of units as per entitlement has been granted to complainant. Moreover, now, there is no need to correct the bills and correct bill has been issued to her.  Complainant has paid only bill for the period from 16.02.2018 to 20.04.2018 in May, 2018 and thereafter, she has not deposited any amount in respect of consumption of power.

 

cc no.- 56 of 2019

Concession sought has already been given to her and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

9                                     From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence and documents placed on record by OPs, there remains no doubt that requisite concession has been given and grievance of complainant has already been redressed by them. Complainant has herself narrated that after May, 2018 she has not paid any bill for consumption of power and now, as OPs have given concession of Rs.20,017/-for the entire period during which no concession was given and have issued correct bill to her, therefore, there seems to be no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, complaint becomes infructuous and is hereby dismissed accordingly. 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 Open Forum

Dated : 13.11.2019

                            

                               (Param Pal Kaur)                      (Ajit Aggarwal)

   Member                         President