Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/44

Balwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.P.Chauhan Adv.

11 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 44 dated 28.01.2020.                                                Date of decision: 11.10.2022.

 

Balwinder Singh aged about 63 years s/o. Sh. Dalip Singh, r/o. H.No.E-13/14, St. No.1, Near Green Land School, Aman Nagar, Bhoura, Ludhiana at present Plot No.6, St. No.0, Kakowal Road, Flower Velly, Ludhiana.

.…..Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. The Chief Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala.                                                                                       
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., City West Division, Unit-2, Near Old Sabzi Mandi, Ludhiana, through its Senior Executive Engineer.                                                                                        …..Opposite parties 

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             :         None.

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the father of the complainant got installed an electric connection bearing account No.3002500223 in the residential property No.E-13/14, St. No.1, Near Green Land School, Aman Nagar, Bhaura, Ludhiana. The father of the complainant died on 30.09.2014. The complainant has been regularly paying the consumption charges in respect of the aid connection to the OPs. However, the OPs have wrongly issued electricity bill for the period from 07.03.2016 to 03.04.2016 amounting to Rs.82,740/- which is just for a period of 27 days. The complainant approached the OPs to rectify the bill but to no avail. Even legal notice 07.12.2019 failed to evoke a positive response from the OPs. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to withdraw the illegal demand raised vide bill dated 03.04.2016 and be also made to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed by the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is hopelessly barred by time as the complainant has challenged the bill dated 26.07.2016 by filing the instant complaint on 20.01.2020 which is beyond the period of two years from the date of the bill. Apart from that, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as the connection was issued in the name of Dalip Singh and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs. The complainant has further not disclosed the names of the other legal heirs of Dalip Singh who died on 30.09.2014.According to the OPs, the bill dated 26.07.2016 for an amount of Rs.82,740/- has been rightly issued which included the amount of arrears of previous financial year. Previously, the OPs had issued the bill dated 09.03.2016  for an amount of Rs.80,130/- for the period from 24.04.2015 to 07.03.2016 for 317 days against old reading status ‘0’ and new reading status 9117 against the consumption of 9117 units. The entire amount relates to consumption of electricity actually consumed by the complainant. 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.                The complainant did not formally tendered evidence. However, affidavit  along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C5 are on record.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Er. Rajesh Kumar, Senior Executive Engineer of the OPs along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R5 and closed the evidence.

5.                None has been appearing in this case on behalf of the complainant since 11.11.2021. We have gone through the record and heard argued advanced by the counsel for the OPs and proceed to decide the case on merits.

6.                By way of this complaint, the complainant has challenged the impugned bill dated 07.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.82,740/- but no specific ground has been taken in the complaint to prove that the bill has been wrongly issued. The OPs on their part have specifically pleaded in para no.4 of the preliminary objections of written statement that the bill of Rs.82,740/- was rightly issued as it included arrears of the previous financial year and further that the OPs had previously issued bill dated 09.03.2016 which is for an amount of Rs.80,130/- for the period from 24.04.2015 to 07.03.2016 for reading of 9117 units which was to be paid by the complainant. It has also been pleaded in the written statement that the entire amount shown in the bill relates to the regular consumption of electricity actually consumed by the complainant. This part of the written statement has not been controverted by the complainant as the complainant did not file any rejoinder or replication nor anything in this regard has been mentioned by the complainant in the affidavit attached with the complaint. It is also not the case of the complainant that the consumption of electricity shown in the impugned bill was never consumed by him nor the working of the meter is shown to have been challenged by the complainant at any point of time. Apart from that, the connection is not in the name of the complainant and it continues to be in the name of his father Dalip Singh though he died on 30.09.2014 yet the complainant has not taken any steps to get the connection transferred in his name. Thus, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs. In the light of these circumstances, it can be safely held that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the impugned bill is liable to be set aside being illegal or unjustified on any ground.

7.                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.

8.                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:11.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Balwinder Singh Vs Chief Engineer PSPCL                   CC/20/44

Present:       None for complainant.

                   Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   None turned up for the complainant today also. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 11.11.2021.

                   Arguments on behalf of the counsel for the OPs 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:11.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.