Tejinder Singh Sekhon filed a consumer case on 08 Jul 2019 against PSPCL in the Faridkot Consumer Court. The case no is CC/19/16 and the judgment uploaded on 11 Sep 2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C. C. No : 16 of 2019
Date of Institution : 18.01.2019
Date of Decision : 8.07.2019
Tejinder Singh Sekhon aged about 59 years s/o Gurcharan Singh Sekhon, Chamber No.135 A Block, District Courts, Faridkot through authorized person/special Attorney Baldev Singh Briar Advocate.
...Complainant
Versus
.........Ops
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Anil Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Mohan Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
cc no - 16 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 bill dated 4.02.2018 onwards and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that electric connection bearing a/c no 3000395597 has been installed in his chamber and complainant is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him on account of consumption charges. It is submitted that he received bill dated 4.02.2018 in which Rs.1150/-were charged as arrears of previous year whereas actual consumption of the complainant was only one unit. Complainant moved an application through his authorized person and on his application, JE of OPs inspected the spot and noted the particulars of the meter as meter no.872322 of Mahashakti capacity 10-60 with current reading of 12 KWH and thereafter, said representative of complainant approached OPs several times with request to correct his bill but all in vain, rather they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and kept sending inflated bills since after 4.02.2018, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. This act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to
cc no - 16 of 2019
correct the bill dated 4.02.2018 and issued thereafter and 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 23.01.2019, 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 that complaint is not filed by competent person. However, on merits Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect but admitted before the Forum that bill in question for Rs.1150/-was issued by them but in that bill Rs.1191/-were charged as surcharges of previous bill and therefore, refund of Rs.1191/-has been given to complainant vide sundry charges and allowance register 67/61/9. It is also admitted that complainant moved application and on his application, JE of Ops checked the meter of complainant and noted its particulars and serial number 872322 of said meter was noted with capacity of 10.6 ampere and at the time of checking, reading was found to be 12 units. It is further averred that necessary correction of meter has been made and account of complainant was overhauled and it was found that amount of Rs.10,011/-is due towards complainant up to the period of 5.02.2019 and complainant is liable to pay the same. All the other allegations and the
cc no - 16 of 2019
allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint 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-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 9 and closed the same.
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-11 and then, closed the evidence.
7 We have heard the ld counsel for complainant and Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.
8 From the careful perusal of documents and evidence placed on record and after going through the arguments advanced by complainant counsel, it is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant is having electric connection issued by Ops and he is the consumer of OPs and has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a bill dated 4.02.2018 for Rs.1150/-
cc no - 16 of 2019
which includes arrears of previous year though actual consumption of the complainant was only one unit. On written request of complainant, OPs checked his meter and noted its particulars as meter no.872322 of Mahashakti capacity 10-60 with current reading of 12 KWH and thereafter, he made several requests to OPs to correct his bill but they did not do anything needful and kept sending inflated bills after 4.02.2018, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, Ops admitted the issuance of bill in question for Rs.1150/- and asserted that Rs.1191/-were charged as surcharges of previous bill and refund thereof i.e of Rs.1191/-has been given to complainant vide sundry charges and allowance register 67/61/9. There is no denial to the fact that on application given by complainant, they effected inspection of his meter and noted serial number 872322 of said meter with capacity of 10.6 ampere and at the time of checking, reading was found to be 12 units. As per OPs, necessary correction of meter has been made and account of complainant was overhauled and it was found that amount of Rs.10,011/-is due towards complainant up to the period of 5.02.2019. There is no deficiency in service on their part.
9 Meanwhile, during the course of arguments, ld counsel for OPs brought on record that amount shown in bill generated on 3.04.2018 amounting to Rs.8427/-+Rs.120/- total Rs.8,547/- has been withdrawn vide Sundry Charges and Allowances Register No.10003998589 and also got recorded separate statement to this effect. Therefore, in the light of statement given by ld counsel for OPs, it is
cc no - 16 of 2019
apparent that grievance of complainant has been redressed by OPs. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby disposed off being infructuous. In peculiar circumstances of the present complaint, there are no orders to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 8.07.2019
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.