Punjab

StateCommission

FA/479/2013

Harjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Navdeep Chhabra

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

                                                                         First Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,  DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.479 of 2013

 

                   Date of institution   :   25.04.2013      

        Date of decision      :   02.09.2015

 

Harjinder Singh sone of Mahnta Singh resident of Kotli Road, near old Mission Hospital, Sri Muktsar Sahib Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib.                                                                                                                                                                                                    …….Appellant/Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Sub Division, Sri Muktsar Sahib.                                                                                    …..…Respondent/Opposite Party

 

First Appeal against order dated 30.01.2013 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib. 

Quorum:- 

 

      Mr. J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

      Mr. H. S. Guram, Member.

 

Present:-

 

      For the appellant               : None

      For the respondent           : None

 

J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

          This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (complainant in the complaint) against the respondent of this appeal (the OP in the complaint), assailing order dated 30.01.2013 passed by the  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Muktsar Sahib ( in short 'the District Forum') in C.C. No. 80 dated 03.04.2012, vide which, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2.                The brief facts of the case are that complainant Harjinder Singh filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the "Act"), against the OP on the allegations that he had been using the electricity connection bearing account No.Y65DK451538P installed in his house of the complainant. The complainant has been paying all the consumption charges of electricity bills to the OP regularly. The old electricity meter no.45226 of the complainant was burnt and matter was brought to the notice of the OP and OP replaced the meter with a new meter and new serial number 23778 was allotted to the complainant. The complainant was surprised to receive the electricity bill in question dated 17.09.2011, raising the demand of Rs.20,335/- alongwith surcharge. On 12.11.2011, the complainant moved an application regarding correction of the bill to the concerned SDO. The concerned SDO enquired into the matter and assured the complainant that the amount would be deducted in the next bill, after taking reading of the new meter of the complainant. Nobody bothered to get meter reading of the complainant. Officials of the OP made writing on the bill dated 12.11.2011 for paying the amount of Rs. 34,884/- by giving the alleged details. The complainant has, thus, filed the consumer complaint against the OPs directing it to pay the amount of Rs.1 lac as compensation.

3.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. It was further stated that the complainant  is not the Consumer of OP. It was further pleaded that the previous consumption charges/amount, which was due against the complainant was Rs.545/- and this amount was shown in the bill of July/2011 and in the bill of July 2011, Rs.909/- was shown, as per average basis of  'L' code, because the premises of the complainant was locked. The complainant had not deposited the said bill amount and at that time the previous reading was Rs.6608 units. The next bill of September 2011 was made of Rs.20,335/- of 3390 units as per reading basis, in which Rs.909/- included as previous balance.  The bill for the month of November 2011 was made as per average basis of "L" code, as the premises of the complainant was locked, amounting to Rs.26,720/-  and previous balance shown as Rs.20,335/- was shown as previous balance, because the complainant had not deposited any amount of previous bills. The amount of previous bill for the month of January 2012 was made as per "L" code because there was lock in the premises of the complainant. The complainant has not deposited the amount. The complaint was also contested even on merits by the OP by alleging that the balance amount due against the old meter No.45226 and the consumption charges was due upon the meter No.45226. The amount of Rs.20,335/- was demanded, vide bill dated 17.09.2011 and further demanded the amount of Rs.27,276/-, vide bill dated 12.11.2011, which was legal and genuine amount and this was the consumption charges of electricity consumed by the complainant.

4.                The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A in support of his averments. Copy of hand written receipt dated 02.04.2012 is Ex.C1, copy of application dated 30.12.2011 Ex.C-2, copy of electricity bill dated 12.11.2011 Ex.C-3, copy of bill dated 17.09.2011 Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 16.07.2011 Ex.C-5, copy of hand written reading by OP Ex.C-6, copies of ledger Ex.C-7 (10 leaves), copy of MCO Ex.C-8, report of LC Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it OP tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Er. Atma Singh AE Ex.OP-1, copies of ledger Ex.OP-2 to Ex.Op-11 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and argument, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal against the same seeking its reversal.

5.                We have examined the record of the case because none has appeared for both the parties from many dates. We proceed to decide this appeal on the basis of merits. Written statement is placed on the record, but we are unable to trace how they are on the record by the appellant because they did not find in any zimmini Order. They have been also considered by us. Evidence has been examined by us on the record to determine the correctness of the finding referred by the District Forum. Complainant Harjinder Singh affidavit Ex.C-A on the record his application by complainant to SDO for correcting reading of the bill as Ex.C-2 Ex.C-3 for the amount of Rs.34,884/- as on the record for the period recording old reading of Units 909, the bill Ex.C-4 for the amount of Rs.18,780/- also from the record. Bill for the period from 22.08.2011 to 28.07.2011 is Ex.C-5 also on the record which is on average basis recording old reading as 6608. The complainant had also placed on record the previous due record
Ex.C-7 on the file. The OP relied upon the affidavit of Atma Singh, AE, Sub-Urban Sub-Division Muktsar Sahib to the effect that previous consumption amount was due against the complainant was Rs.545/- and this amount was shown in bill of July 2011 was made Rs.909/- as per average basis of "L" Code because there was lock in the premises of the complainant. He further stated that complainant had not deposited the said amount and the previous reading the said was at that time of Rs.6608 units. He further stated that September bill was made as per reading basis of Rs.20,335/- of 3390 in which Rs.909/- as previous balance, was included. The bill for the month of November 2011 was made as per average basis of "L" Code because there is lock in the premises of the complainant amount to Rs.26720/- and if not deposited in time then surcharge of Rs.556/- thereof, in this bill of Rs.20,335/- was shown as previous balance because the complainant did not deposited any amount of previous bill, the bill of January 2012 was made as per "L" code because there was lock in the premises of complainant. The amount of Rs.33,670/- not deposited at the time then if Rs.556/- was surcharged thereof, but the complainant not deposited the said bill also and the next bill of March 2012 was made Rs.34,884/- in which Rs.24.226/- was including the previous balance. The ledgers Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-10 have been placed on record by the OP in this case to substantiate their averments.

6.                We are of the view that the OPs sent the bills to the complainant for the month of September 2011, March 2011 from time to time, but no payments were deposited by the complaint. There is no proof produced on record by the complainant that he paid the amount of the bills. The complainant could not point out and substantiate on the record that when his premises were locked and the bills were issued on average basis, then consumption of the corresponding of previous year has to be taken into account in this case. The complainant at the door of this Commission to show that the order of the District Forum is erroneous. The OPs raised the demanded of Rs.34,884/- which stood increase on account of consumption charges of the corresponding previous time in the bill, which was issued on average basis  and was recoverable from the complainant. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is the duty of the complainant to make the payment for the electricity consumption, which supplied by the OP. Nothing is possible to be freely supplied without making payment. We are unable to find any illegality in the order of the District Forum. For the reasons recorded, the appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed.

7.                The arguments in this appeal were heard on 26.08.2015 and the order was reserve­d. Now, the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

8.                The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                             (J.S. Klar)

                                                             Presiding Judicial Member

                                                                           

 

                                                                             (H.S. Guram)

                                                                                 Member                           

                                                                       

September 02, 2015                                                     

RK 2