Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/136

Thakar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Mittal

12 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                             Complaint No :       136

Date of Institution : 18.09.2015

Date of Decision :    12.05.2016

Thakar Singh s/o Puran Singh r/o Gandhi Basti, Dwareana Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Kotkapura, Sub Division, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

3. S.D.O, Sub Divisional Officer, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           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 withdraw the bill dt 23.03.2015 for Rs 42,690/- charged as sundry charges and to pay Rs30,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant and Rs.11,000/-as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having electric connection bearing a/c no. F 46 DK 310199 Y and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received. It is contended that complainant received a bill dt 1.08.2015 for Rs 44,280/-, and on receiving the same, complainant approached Ops and enquired about said charges. Complainant requested them that he belongs to poor category and he used power under the units exempted to said  category. Thereupon, Ops asked him to deposit Rs2000/- and under compelling circumstances complainant deposited Rs2000/-with them as Ops were threatening to disconnect his connection if he fails to deposit the amount of Rs2000/-, but even after depositing the amount of Rs2000/-with Ops, they again issued bill for Rs 42,690/-to complainant. Complainant approached them and made several requests to withdraw the bill, but they kept putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other. Before charging this amount, no prior notice was issued by Ops to him. Despite repeated requests made by complainant to withdraw the said bill, Ops did not listen him. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused loss, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay Rs 30,000/-for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs5,000/-as litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                   Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 21.09.2015, 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 OPs have constituted various Disputes Settlement Committees to settle the disputes between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before such committee and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. It is averred that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service or trade mal practice on the part of OPs. It is admitted that Ops sent the said bill to complainant and complainant was called upon to deposit the bill for Rs 43,780/-.It is averred that bill for period 16.07.2014 to 15.09.2014 was sent for 5938 units and last bill was for 17613 units. The new reading was 23551 units and consumption was of 5938 units and therefore bill for Rs 43,780/-was sent to complainant, which complainant challenged later on. It is further averred that meter of complainant was sent to M E Lab for checking vide challan no. 30 dt 19.01.2015 and report regarding it was received on 30.01.2015. during checking it was found that meter was working properly and there was no defect in said meter and therefore bill in question was sent to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the amount and complete detail of amount charged was given to complainant. It is asserted that this amount is still due toward complainant and complainant is liable to pay the same. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering 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-1 and documents Ex C-2  to 25 and closed the same.

6                                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh SDO as Ex.OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-5 and closed the same on behalf of OPs.

 

7                                           Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that aforementioned electricity connection is issued to him and he is regularly paying all the bills as and when received. Complainant counsel contended that complainant belongs to Schedule Caste Community and 200 units of power are exempted to him and complainant also possesses BPL card as he is a poor man and comes under Below Poverty Line category. It is contended that complainant received a bill dt 1.08.2015 for Rs 44,280/-, and on receiving the same, complainant approached Ops and enquired about said charges. Complainant requested them that he belongs to poor category and he uses power under the units exempted to him as  per BPL category. It is further contended that Ops asked him to deposit Rs2000/- and under compelling circumstances complainant deposited the same with them as Ops were threatening to disconnect his connection if he fails to deposit the amount of Rs2000/-, but even after depositing the amount of Rs2000/-with Ops, they again issued bill for Rs 42,690/-to complainant. Complainant approached them and made several requests to withdraw the bill, but they kept putting him off on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that no prior notice was issued by Ops to him and despite repeated requests made by complainant to withdraw the said bill, Ops did not pay heed to listen him. The OPs are not entitled to receive this amount from complainant as they have illegally demanded this amount from complainant. All these acts of Ops amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and due to this complainant has suffered great mental tension and harassment. Ld counsel for complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

8            Ld Counsel for OPs argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.They issued correct bill to complainant and it is the duty of complainant to pay the same. It is averred that Ops sent the said bill to complainant and complainant was called upon to deposit the bill for Rs43,780/-. It is further averred that bill for period 16.07.2014 to 15.09.2014 was sent for 5938 units and in last bill reading was for 17613 units. New reading was 23551 units and consumption was of 5938 units and therefore bill for Rs43,780/-was sent to complainant, which complainant challenged later on. It is further averred that meter of complainant was sent to M E Lab for checking vide challan no. 30 dt 19.01.2015 and report regarding it was received on 30.01.2015. During checking it was found that meter was working properly and there was no defect in said meter and therefore bill in question was sent to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the amount and complete detail of amount charged was given to complainant. It is asserted that this amount is still due toward complainant and complainant is liable to pay the same. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. OPs have charged this amount legally and as per rules and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and complainant has not suffered any mental tension or harassment due to it. The complainant has filed this present false and frivolous complaint only to defraud the OPs. The present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

9                                    Careful perusal of documents Ex C-12 to Ex C-25,  which are copies of bills issued by Ops to complainant, clearly depict that reading of meter of complainant is never excessive and he has consumed power under units exempted to him. Therefore, question for raising demanding disputed amount of Rs.43,780/-for 5938 units does not arise at all. Moreover, Ex C-3 is the copy of B.P.L certificate clearly revealing the fact that complainant belongs to Below Poverty Line category and a person belonging to below poverty line can not be presumed to have consumed this excessive amount of 5938 units. Ex C-5 and Ex C-6 are the copies of applications written by complainant to Ops, wherein complainant has made requests to Ops to check his meter and withdraw the illegal demand as he had never received bill for such a huge amount. On the contrary documents produced by Ops do not justify how they raised such huge amount to complainant and have also failed to prove that 5938 units of power were consumed by complainant through his meter.

10                            From the above discussion and arguments advanced by the parties, we are fully convinced with the complainant and complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. The Ops cannot claim this amount from complainant. OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs 42,690/- which is charged by them as sundry charges from the complainant. The OPs are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited by complainant vide order of this Forum dt 3.12.2015 with OPs in his subsequent bills. Compliance of this order be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 12.05.2016

                   Member                   Member               President                     (Parampal Kaur)                 (P Singla)           (Ajit Aggarwal)