BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 16 of 2008. Instituted On: 13.02.2008. Date of Service: 05.03.2008. Decided On: 26.06.2008. Ajay Kumar Mittal (aged about 50 years) son of Ram Parkash resident of H.No.204, Street No.2, Vedant Nagar, Moga Tehsil & District Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala. 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Moga. 3. Assistant Executive Engineer/ Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, South Sub Division, Moga. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Sh.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Miss Jiwanjot Kaur, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.N.K.Palta, Advocate counsel for the OPs. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Ajay Kumar Mittal complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Patiala and others (herein-after referred to as Board)-opposite parties directing them to quash the demand of Rs. 4950/- added in the consumption bill dated 02.02.2008 and also to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Ajay Kumar Mittal complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties-Board having domestic electric connection no.F24VN11022X with sanctioned load of 9.50 KW at his residential premises. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That the bill of the complainant always comes near to Rs.1000/- bi-monthly. The OPs-Board has sent a bill dated 02.02.2008 vide which they demanded Rs.4950/- by due date and Rs.5395/- after due date. That the complainant never used the energy to that extent. That the impugned demand raised by the OPs-Board is illegal, unwarranted and against the rules and regulations of the OPs-Board. That the complainant had approached the office of OPs-Board number of times and requested to withdraw the impugned demand, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to the complainant for which he has claimed Rs.10000/- as compensation. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.N.K.Palta Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; that this Form has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board and that the complaint is defective one and requires better particulars. On merits, it was alleged that on 13.7.2007 the meter installed at the residential premises of the complainant was checked by A.E who found the same as dead. On the report of A.E. the meter was replaced vide MCO no.26 dated 1.8.2007. Thereafter, the audit party of the OPs-Board overhauled his account as per Sales Regulation 73.1.2 for the period of 5/2007 to 9/2007 by taking the average of 12/2006 to 4/2007 and claimed Rs.3926/- vide notice no.221 dated 19.11.2007, but the complainant has failed to deposit the same. The amount was included as sundry charges in his energy bill dated 02.02.2008. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, bill Ex.A2, copies of bills Ex.A3 to Ex.A8 and closed his evidence. 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar Addl.S.E. and Gurmit Singh SDO, copy of checking report Ex.R2, copy of half margin Ex.R3, copy of MCO Ex.R4, copy of notice Ex.R5, copy of consumption date Ex.R6, copy of sales regulation Ex.R7 and closed their evidence. 6. We have gone through the documents produced by Sh.Ajay Kumar Mittal complainant and Sh.N.K.Palta ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 7. Admittedly, on 13.10.2007 the checking party headed by A.E. of the OPs-Board had checked the premises of the complainant and they found the meter no.112981 installed at the premises of the complainant as dead. In this regard, the checking report Ex.R2 and joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar Addl.S.E. and Gurmit Singh SDO established the checking of the electric connection of the complainant. In the checking report Ex.R2 it is further mentioned that the meter was checked by Sh.Gurmit Singh A.E and he found the same as dead. On the report of A.E. the meter was replaced vide MCO no.26 dated 1.8.2007. Thereafter, the audit party of the OPs-Board overhauled his account as per Sales Regulation 73.1.2 for the period of 5/2007 to 9/2007 by taking the average of 12/2006 to 4/2007. Thus, taking the average of consumption for the month of 12/2006 to 4/2007, the account of the complainant was overhauled by the OPs-Board as per the rules and regulations of the PSEB. Thereafter, the OPs-Board issued a notice no.221 dated 19.11.2007 to the complainant for Rs.3926/- which the complainant did not pay. Thereafter, the said amount including surcharge total amounting to Rs.4950/- on account of difference of amount in the bill for 5/2007 to 9/2007 are legally entitled to recover. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board and the OPs-Board has rightly overhauled the account of the complainant. 9. To prove the aforesaid contention, the OPs-Board has produced joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar Addl.S.E. and Gurmit Singh SDO, copy of checking report Ex.R2, copy of half margin Ex.R3, copy of MCO Ex.R4, copy of notice Ex.R5, copy of consumption date Ex.R6, copy of sales regulation Ex.R7. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and other documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A8. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order shall be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:26.06.2008.
