DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 419 of 3.10.2016

                                      Decided on:            20.12.2017

Vidya Devi ( aged about 60 years ) widow of Sh.Ghanaya Lal, resident of House No.29, New Mehar Singh Colony, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

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

2.       Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., West Sub Division, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                                       

ARGUED BY:

                                       Smt.Vidya Devi, complainant in person.

                   `                  Sh.Harkirat Singh Dhaliwal,Adv.counsel

                                      for opposite parties.                                  

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Smt.Vidya Devi, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-

It is stated that the complainant paid onlyRs.22,000/- on 30.3.2015 and Rs.10,000/-on 10.4.2015.Thereafter, the complainant was sent bill for the month of May,2015 amounting to Rs.60,920/-including the arrear of Rs.58,515/-(after deducing the amount of Rs.32,000/- paid by the complainant).She failed to pay the amount of said bill. Again bill for the month of July 2015 was sent to her for a sum of Rs.69,890/-including Rs.59,176/- the arrear of previous months. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 20.8.2015 and Rs.5000/- on 7.9.2015. Again bill for the month of August,2015 was sent to her for a sum of Rs.45,270/-including Rs.41,680/-as arrears of previous months, after deducing the amount of Rs.25,350/- paid by her. Thereafter bill for the month of January,2016 was sent to her for a sum of Rs.48,920/- including the arrears of Rs.45,270/-but she did not pay the same and she was sent bill for the month of Maqrch,2016 for a sum of Rs.57,080/- including the arrears of Rs.48,981/- but she failed to pay the same and bill for the month of May 2016 was sent to her for a sum of Rs.61,320/- including the arrears of previous months of Rs.57,215/-.This bill was also not paid by her and accordingly the bill for the month of July,2016 was sent to her amounting to Rs.70,840/-including the arrear of Rs.61509/-.The OPs did not receive the amount of the said bill and they sent the disputed bill of Rs.80,991/-including the arrear of Rs.71,115/. It is stated that the amount of the disputed bill dated 5.9.2016 is not of the said bill only but it also includes the arrears of previous years. There is no deficiency of service on their part. After denying all other averments made in the complaint , it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

The ld. counsel for theOPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Puri,SDO West Sub Division, PSPCL alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP23 and closed the evidence of the OPs.

Date of paymentamount

From the copy of the detail of the electricity bills , Ex.OP23,it is evident that the Ops have raised the bills to the tune of Rs.2,47,950/-, for the period from 1.10.2012 to 19.12.2016, for the electricity consumed by the complainant out of which she had paid Rs.1,60,446/- and she had still to pay the outstanding amount otherthan the amount of Rs.72,350/- already paid by her as mentioned above. No receipt regarding the payment of the outstanding amounthas been placed on record by the complainant, which shows that she has still to pay the outstanding amount for the electricity consumed by her. Therefore, the prayer made by the complainant for quashing the impugned bill cannot be accepted. At the same time, this fact cannot be ignored that the complainant has to be pay the huge amount and being a widow and single lady it will be difficult and burden upon her to pay the said amount in one go. Therefore, weare of the view that she shall pay the 50% of the outstanding amount in one go and the remaining 50% with subsequent bills in equal installments.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 20.12.2017             

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER