DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 57 of 22-02-2008<br /> Decided on :23-04-2008 <br /> <br /> Sandaljit Kaur W/o Baljit Singh R/o House No. 2014, Near Cloth Market, Tehsil & District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary<br /> 2.The SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, City Sub Division, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties <br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sidarth, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Rajneesh Rampal, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Electricity Connection bearing A/c No. CM-46/0748 has been installed at the residence of the complainant situated near Cloth Market, Bathinda. She is paying the electricity consumption bills regularly. It is alleged that nothing is outstanding against her. Bill dated 4.12.07 was issued by the opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 3560/- payable by due date for 881 units. She assails this bill as excessive, against law and facts. It is alleged by her that meter reader of the opposite parties was not recording the consumption after visiting her house. He was showing the consumption while sitting in his office. This is clear from the fact that during the summer season when coolers, fans and refrigerator are used, consumption of units has been shown as 32 units for the period from 9.1.07 to 9.3.07; 77 for the period from 9.3.07 to 9.5.07; 62 from 9.5.07 to 9.7.07 and 18 from 9.7.07 to 9.9.07. Her bi-monthly consumption prior to the bill dated 4.12.07 was ranging from 18 to 77 units in peak summer months whereas in the winter season consumption in the bill dated 4.12.07 has been shown as 881 units which does not sound to reason. She is not liable to pay this amount. Her requests to revise the bill have proved futile. Act and conduct of the opposite parties have caused her mental tension and loss. In these circumstances, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by her seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw bill dated 4.12.07 and issue revised bill in its place as per actual consumption; pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages and cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking the legal objections that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; she is estopped from filing the complaint by her act and conduct and complaint is false and frivolous. They admit that complainant was depositing the amount of electricity consumption bills yet she is in arrears of current bill dated 4.12.07 for 881 units to the tune of Rs. 3560/-. Bill has been issued as per actual consumption. They deny that meter reader was not noting down reading properly. Reading is correct as is clear from the reading recorded in PSEB Meter Blank (General). She is liable to pay the amount of the bill. Notice from the complainant was received but the same was replied. They deny the remaining averments.<br /> 3. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence her affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-2), photocopy of reply of legal notice (Ex.C-3) and photocopies of bills (Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-15).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties two affidavits of S/Sh. Raj Kumar Singla, S.D.O. City and Jagroop Singh, Meter Reader (Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2) respectively and photocopy of Ledger page No. 31 (Ex. R-3) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Principal argument pressed into service by the learned counsel for the complainant is that impugned bill dated 4.12.07, copy of which is Ex. C-14 is highly inflated. She did not consume 881 units during the period 10.9.07 to 10.11.07. Prior to the period 10.9.07 bi-monthly consumption of electricity in terms of units was ranging from 18 to 77 units even in the peak summer months and on that account it is not understandable that there would be consumption of electricity of 881 units for the period 10.9.07 to 10.11.07. In this connection, he drew our attention to the copies of the electricity consumption bills Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-14 and Ex. C-15, affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-1 and copy of the legal notice Ex. C-2.<br /> 7. Mr. Ranjeesh Rampal, learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that mere fact that impugned bill dated 4.12.07 is for 881 units is no ground to hold that it is illegal and arbitrary.<br /> 8. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 9. It is well settled that onus to prove the averments in the complaint is upon the complainant. He/she is required to prove his/her version by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. It is not the version of the complainant that meter installed in her premises is not correctly recording the consumption of electricity or it is running fast. Her allegation is that meter reader was not visiting her premises for noting down the electricity consumed by her and that he was showing the consumption of electricity while sitting in his office. Her this plea does not in any way advance her cause. Rather the inference from this is that she might be using more energy than the one which was shown to have been consumed. Sh. Jagroop Singh, Meter Reader has submitted his affidavit Ex. R-2. He has stated in so many words that he has been taking the reading from the meter installed in the premises of the complainant correctly. Meter readings recorded were not wrong. No complaint was ever made regarding taking the wrong readings by him. This affidavit of sh. Jagroop Singh is worth placing credence. There is no material on the record to show that he is in any way interested to depose against the complainant particularly when no complaint has been made by the complainant against him to the effect that he was not visiting her premises for taking reading regarding the consumption of electricity. Ex. R-3 is the copy of Ledger page No. 31 showing the readings taken from the premises of the complainant from time to time. There may be various factors of consumption of more units in a particular bi-monthly period in comparison with the consumption during the prior bi-monthly period. Consumption of units depends upon the use of electricity. Summer and winter seasons for this purpose are irrelevant. Had the allegation of the complainant been that the meter is defective or is running fast, some weight could be attached to her averments regarding excessive consumption of electricity. There is no allegation concerning the correctness of equipment. Mere fact that consumption is 881 units for the period for which bill dated 4.12.07 has been issued, is no ground to hold that bill is illegal, arbitrary and inflated one. In these circumstances, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved.<br /> 10. In view of our foregoing discussion complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 23-04-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member