Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/271

Kiran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pujab State Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

compl in person

13 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 271 dated 31.05.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 13.10.2022.

 

Kiran R/o. H. No.B-11-1984, Mission Compound, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant 

•  

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana through SDO.                                                                                                                                                                                                       …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,      1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Ms. Kiran in person.

For OP                           :         Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that one electricity connection having account No.3002523053 was earlier installed in the name of her brother Parvez Mathew. There was an outstanding bill in respect of the said account to the tune of more than Rs.60,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.28,000/- out of the said amount and the remaining amount was paid by the complainant’s relatives as two families were residing in the same premises. Thereafter, a new electricity connection was installed bearing account No.3015005838 in the month of April 2016. However, in the month of 2018, some officials of the OPs came to the house of the complainant and claimed that some bills were still outstanding and asked her to come to the office to resolve the issue. Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of the OPs where she was told that a billed amount of Rs.47,556/- pertaining to the year 2014-2015 was still outstanding in respect of account No.3002523053 which was in the name of the complainant’s  brother Parvez Mathew. As a matter of fact, in the year 2014, the meter was burnt and replaced with new one but the connection itself was disconnected in September 2015 due to non-payment of bills. Even the meter was uninstalled in January 2016 and due to which no consumption was recorded from January 2016 to March 2016. The complainant explained to the OPs when new meters were installed in the year 2016 that the entire outstanding amount of the previous connection were duly paid. However, the employees of the OPs claimed that the bill had been issued by M.E. Lab after checking the meter and as such, the complainant will have to either pay the same or get the outstanding amount added in the current bills. Having left with no option, the complainant agreed to pay the bills in installments. The complainant agreed to pay Rs.23,778/- in installments but as the payment of the installments got late, the complainant was made to pay Rs.26,270/- which included interest on delayed payments. As no bill was issued in respect of the said amount, the complainant again approached the OPs and asked for the bill. After seeing the bill, the complainant came to know that the bill amount was Rs.42,390/-. She was told that the enhanced amount included the interest on delayed payment. The complainant requested the OPs that since the bill was never issued to them, therefore, no interest should be payable and the same be waived off but the OPs did not agree. The complainant was forced to give in writing that she would pay the amount in installments failing which outstanding amount will be added in her current bills. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to  refund the entire amount and interest, if any, be also ordered to be awarded along with compensation etc.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has suppressed the material facts while filing the complaint. According to the OP, there was a default of Rs.47,952/- in respect of electric meter connection No.3002523053. As a result, the OP disconnected the said connection which was in the name of Parvez Mathew. The default amount was in respect of regular consumer charges. The complainant field an application with the OP pertaining to the said default amount and also offered to deposit half of the disputed amount by way of installments. She further submitted an application stating that the remaining amount be recovered from Smt. Teenu Parvez wife of Parvez Mathew. The OP accepted the request of the complainant and allowed her to deposit half of the disputed amount by way of installments. Similarly, Smt. Teenu Parvez also filed an application with the OP to transfer half of the outstanding amount pertaining to account No.3002523053 to her electric connection No.3002986605. Accordingly, the defaulted amount from account No.3002523053 was debited in the electric account of the complainant and that of Smt. Teenu Parvez. The OP have further pleaded that the meter of electric connection No.3002523053 was changed vide M.C.O. dated 03.09.2014 effected on 06.09.2014 due to ‘display off/burnt’. The meter was sent to M.E. Lab vide store challan No.3 dated 20.10.2014 with final reading of 30123 whereas bill of the consumer was prepared up to reading of 27222. There was reading of 1263 units in the new meter. These facts were brought to the notice of the OP by the Audit party vide half margin No.164 dated 03.05.2016. The audit party further pointed out that a sum of Rs.25,886/- was recoverable from the consumer in respect of connection No.3002523053. The complainant as well as wife of Parvez Mathew were ready to deposit the amount along with other charges. The complainant herself voluntarily agreed to deposit half of the amount by way of four installments and she has already deposited her share as agreed by her and only one installment was due when she filed the present complaint on false and frivolous grounds. The demand raised against the complainant and wife of Parvez Mathew is legal and genuine and the complainant is bound to pay the agreed the amount. The complainant has already paid Rs.6600/- on 14.12.2018, Rs.7600/- on 16.12.2018 and Rs.7730/- on 11.02.2019 in discharge of her liability. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P10 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Er. Sukhvir Singh, Senior Executive Engineer, CMC Division (Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana along with document Ex. R1 to Ex. R10 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard arguments advanced by the complainant as well as counsel for the OP and gone through the record.

6.                During the course of arguments, the complainant has pointed out that there were two connections installed in the premises out of which one was commercial and the other was domestic. She has further stated that in September 2015, domestic connection was disconnected and the commercial connection was also disconnected in January 2016. The complainant and her sister-in-law (wife of Parvez Mathew) paid the entire outstanding amount of Rs.60,000/- in respect of the said two connections in March 2016 and, thereafter, the complainant and her sister-in-law got installed separate domestic connections in their respective names. However, the OP, in the year 2018, again started demanding more money and compelled the complainant to pay three installments Rs.66000/- each in the year 2019 which was not at all due and, therefore, the OP must be made to refund the said amount to the complainant.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP has argued that the demand in respect of connection No.3002523053 was rightfully raised as the meter in respect of the said connection was changed vide MCO dated 03.09.2014 effected on 06.09.2014 as it was burnt. The meter was sent to ME Lab vide store challan No.3 dated 20.10.2014. At the time, the meter was taken off, it showed reading of 27222 units and the reading of new meter was 1263 units. As a result, the Audit party vide half margin No.164 dated 03.05.2016 pointed out the demand of Rs.25,886/-. The counsel for the OP has further referred to the documents Ex. R1 whereby the complainant herself voluntarily agreed to pay half of the outstanding amount by way of four installments of Rs.6600/- each and the remaining amount of Rs.23,778/- was to be paid by Smt. Teenu Parvez wife of Mathew Parvez in whose name the connection was installed. The request moved by Smt. Teenu Parvez is Ex. R3. The note of the audit party raising demand is Ex. R2. The counsel for the OP has further referred to the note of audit party Ex. R10 wherein it is also clearly mentioned that when the burnt meter was taken off, it displayed reading of 27222 and the new meter had consumer 1263 units. In the light of these facts, it has been urged by the counsel for the OP that the complaint is without any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8.                We have weighed the contentions of the rival parties and have gone through the record minutely.

9.                The Audit party note Ex. R10 has not been challenged by the complainant nor has it been claimed that the reading of the burnt meter was something else when it was taken off. Apart from this, the complainant voluntarily agreed to pay the outstanding defaulted amount by way of installments as is evident from her written request Ex. R1. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the demand of Rs.26,270/- has been wrongly made from her. Moreover, the complainant has agreed to pay this amount to the OPs vide her written request Ex. R1. Similarly, her sister-in-law Smt. Teenu Parvez has also agreed and paid her share of the amount vide written statement Ex. R3. Interestingly, sister-in-law of the complainant has not challenged the same demand. There is no evidence that the complainant was compelled, forced or forcibly made to agree to pay this amount which otherwise was payable by the complainant as per audit party of the OPs. So no case of deficiency of service on the part of the OP is made out.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:13.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Kiran Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited                   CC/19/271

Present:       Complainant Ms. Kiran in person.

                   Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:13.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.