BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 49 of 2008. Instituted On: 02.05.2008. Date of Service: 28.05.2008. Decided On: 18.09.2008. Krishan Singh (aged 57 years) son of Sh.Gurdial Singh, resident of village: Rajiana, Tehsil: Bagha Purana, Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala. 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bagha Purana, Distt.Moga. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bagha Purana, Distt.Moga. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Sh.Pankaj Nauhria, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.Satvir Singh, Advocate counsel for the OPs. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Krishan Singh 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 and others-opposite parties directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.7651/- raised vide bill dated 8.2.2008 as sundry charges and also to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Krishan Singh complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.F15AJ93/0108F with sanctioned load of 5.28 KW. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That about two years back due to short circuit, the complainant deposited Rs.695/- with the OPs-Board for installation of new meter. Thereafter, in October 2007 the OPs-Board installed new meter at his residential premises. That during the afore-mentioned period of 20 months, the OPs-Board used to receive consumption charges from the complainant on the basis of connected load. That in the month of December 2007, the complainant received a bill of Rs.620/- on the basis of meter reading. Thereafter, he received a bill for February 2008 in which an amount of Rs.7651/- has been added on account of sundry charges without explaining any reason. That the said demand is altogether wrong, unjust, void at law as nothing was due against the complainant. 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 beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.Satvir Singh 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 is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. In fact, in the month of November 2005 Asstt. Audit Officer of the OPs-Board found the meter of the complainant as defective and the same was replaced vide MCO no.106/66332 effected on 18.9.2007. Thereafter, the account of the complainant for the period w.e.f. November 2005 to September 2007 was overhauled taking the average consumption of 511 units of previous six months i.e. May 2005 to September 2005. Consequently a notice no.237 dated 5.2.2008 for Rs.7651/- was sent on account of difference of previous paid and chargeable amount. But the complainant did not pay the same. Thereafter, the impugned amount has been added in his consumption bill dated 8.2.2008, to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. On merits, the OPs-Board took up the same and similar plea as taken up by them in preliminary objections. 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 affidavit of Tejinder Singh his attorney Ex.A1, power of attorney Ex.A2, copy of receipt Ex.A3, copies of bills Ex.A4 to Ex.A15, copy of notice Ex.A16, postal receipt Ex.A17, copy of reminder Ex.A18, receipt Ex.A19 and closed his evidence. 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Damanjit Singh Sr.XEN Ex.R1, copy of MCO Ex.R2, copy of consumption charges Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4 and closed their evidence. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Pankaj Nauhria ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.Satvir Singh ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 7. Sh.Pankaj Nauhria ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.7651/- raised vide bill dated 8.2.2008 as sundry charges by the OPs-Board is wrong & illegal and the complainant is not liable to pay the same. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. Admittedly, on the application of the complainant and after depositing installation fee of Rs.695/- by him, the meter installed at his premises was replaced vide MCO no. 106/66332 effected on 18.9.2007. It is also admitted case of the parties that during the period the meter remained inoperative, the complainant was charged on the basis of connected load. Thereafter, the account of the complainant for the period w.e.f. November 2005 to September 2007 was overhauled taking the average consumption of 511 units of previous six months i.e. May 2005 to September 2005 as per sales regulation 73.1.2 of the PSEB. The detail of the same are mentioned as below: Bill month Consumption of units May 2005 732 units bi-monthly July 2005 604 units bi-monthly September 2005 198 units bi-monthly -------------- 1534 units bi-monthly Average consumption 1534/3 = 511 units. 8. Thus, as per the aforesaid average consumption, the complainant was actually chargeable to the extent of for Rs.20940/-, whereas he was charged Rs.13307/- on the basis of connected load. Hence, taking the average consumption of 511 units for the aforesaid period, 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.237 dated 5.2.2008 to the complainant for Rs.7651/- to pay the difference of amount in bills for the period w.e.f. November 2005 to September 2007 to which the OPs-Board are legally entitled to recover. Hence, the aforesaid demand raised by the OPs-Board was quite legal and valid. 9. 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. 10. To prove the aforesaid contention, the OPs-Board has produced affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Damanjit Singh Sr.XEN, copy of MCO Ex.R2, copy of consumption charges Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on affidavit Ex.A1 of the attorney of complainant and other documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A19. 11. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Due to aforesaid 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) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla) Member Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:18.09.2008. hrg*
