Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/464

Harbans Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

compl.in person

19 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

 

Consumer Complaint No. 464 of 05.08.2015

Date of Decision            :   19.09.2016

 

Harbans Singh aged 62 years s/o Sh.Rattan Singh resident of H.No.86, Ward No.9, Old Mandi Mullanpur, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Mullanpur Dakha, District Ludhiana.

2.Chief Engineering, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, The Mall Patiala.

 

…Opposite parties

 

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :        Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate.

For OPs                          :        Sh.A.S.Pahwa, Advocate 

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant, a consumer of electricity with account No.UTO-60487-W, filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against Ops by claiming that Mullanpur Dakha office of OPs issued an electricity bill for an amount of Rs.11,130/- for the period from 26.6.2015 to 9.7.2015. That amount was much in excess of the actual consumption of the complainant, due to which, he approached the SDO concerned, who reduced the bill for a sum of Rs.3146/-. Even then the bill is in excess of the actual consumption. Complainant called upon OPs many times to take suitable action and OPs agreed that if meter is running fast and action will be taken. Complainant reported the matter to SDO on 14.7.2015, but despite that non come for conducting the checking of the meter at the house of the complainant. Complainant has already  sent a letter to SE PSPCL at Ludhiana and SDO Office as well as to the        Hon’ble Chief Minister of Punjab for complaining of this excess charging of the amount. Photostat copy of electricity bill and letters alleged to be enclosed with the complaint. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, prayer made for directing Ops to amend the bill in question as per load/consumption after deducting the illegal amount. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.5000/- even claimed.

2.                OPs submitted written reply by pleading interalia as if the complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action because the matter has already been settled. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Meter installed at the premises of the complainant was changed and a new meter was installed. When the meter was changed, the old and new meter reading was the same i.e.16845 and bill of Rs.198.80P of monthly minimum charges was sent. At the time of change of the meter, the reading was 17422 units and bill upto that reading was prepared. The meter was tested in the ME Lab on the basis of the consent letter given by the complainant. That consent was also reflected in MCO as well as in the store challan of the ME Lab. That challan gave recorded reading as 17422 units. Subsequently, the average bill was corrected and the bill of 576 units (i.e.17422- 16845 = 576) units consumption was prepared. After deducting Rs.198/-, bill for Rs.3731/- was sent and the amount of Rs.3146/- charged in excess was adjusted. Complainant was disclosed about the same and he was fully satisfied. Grievance of the complainant had already been redressed and as such, complaint merits dismissal.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA1 along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/A of Er.Jagdev Singh Hans, Additional S.E.Adda Dakha Division of OPs along with documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D8 and then closed evidence.

5.                Written arguments have not been submitted by any of the parties, but only oral arguments were addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                Though, in para no.1 of the complaint, it is mentioned that electricity bill for the period from 26.6.2015 to 9.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.11,130/- was sent in excess, but photostat copy of produced bill Ex.C1 pertains to the billing                period 27.4.2015 to 26.6.2015. Consumption of 648 units is shown in this bill because the old meter reading consumption shown as 888 units, but new as 1536 units. This is the only bill produced by the complainant and as such, the contents of this bill has to be taken into consideration for finding as to whether the excess amount charged from the complainant or not? Amount of Rs.6822/- mentioned as earlier arrear and that is why, charging of amount of Rs.11,130/- through this bill claimed. So, certainly the complainant filed the complaint qua excess billing with respect to bill Ex.C1. So, in case, the consumption of 648 units for the period from 27.4.2015 to 26.6.2015 taken into consideration, then the bill amount may be Rs.4536/-, in case, it be taken with tariff rate per units including SOP and other charges at Rs.7/- per unit. However, Rs.4308/- alone claimed as the current electricity consumption charges for the period from 27.4.2015 to 26.6.2015 through bill Ex.C1. So, amount charged through bill Ex.C1 cannot be said to be excessive one. Rather, Rs.6822/- included as the amount of earlier arrear in bill Ex.C1.

7.                Copy of earlier bill through which charging at unit consumption of 576 done is not placed on record, despite the fact that in the application Ex.C2 filed by the complainant, it is claimed that bill for month of October, 2014 and September 2014 should have been for consumption of 576 units i.e.17422 – 16845. Through this Ex.C2 itself, it has been disclosed to the complainant that excess charged amount of Rs.3146/- has been adjusted and as such, amount of Rs.3746/- needs to be paid by the complainant. Perusal of that letter Ex.C2 sent by AEE of OPs to the complainant itself reveals that amount of Rs.3746/- sought to be claimed from the complainant for consumption of electricity during the period       of September and October, 2014. The earlier meter was removed and the checking of the same took place on deposit of Rs.130/- by the complainant is a fact borne from the contents of letter Ex.C3 and copies of consumption checking load registers Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 as well as Ex.D4 and Ex.D6. This checking was done on the request of the complainant placed on record as Ex.D5. Complainant through Ex.D5 agreed for getting the meter checked through ME Lab in his absence. It was in pursuance of that report Ex.D6 of ME Lab obtained and thereafter, reduction of Rs.3146/- has been ordered and conveyed to the complainant through letter Ex.C2=Ex.D7. After adjusting the excess charged amount of Rs.3146/-, the complainant expressed his satisfaction and that is why, he suffered statement for filing the complaint because grievance does not remain with respect to the letter No.440 dated 8.7.2015. That letter in fact is Ex.C2=Ex.D7. As complainant himself acknowledged about the settlement of dispute qua the amount of Rs.6822/- after adjustment of Rs.3146/- there from and as such, present complaint certainly is not maintainable, particularly when the same has been filed without disclosing the facts qua satisfaction note endorsed through Ex.D8, existing on the                   back of the letter Ex.D7 itself. The charging of amount of Rs.3731/- as such is for the period from September and October 2014 and not for the period mentioned in para no.3 of the complaint. A person who by suppressing the facts files complaint not entitled to any relief except the amount paid by him in excess in view of the orders dated 24.8.2015 passed by this Forum on application for grant of interim injunction. As in pursuance of the orders of 24.8.2015 passed in this complaint, recovery of the impugned amount of Rs.6822/- alone was stayed and the remaining amount was deposited on account of the current electricity charges of impugned bill Ex.C1 and as such, virtually no excess amount was deposited by the complainant at all even in pursuance of the orders dated 24.8.2015 of this Forum. Rather, claim of the complainant has been satisfied itself and contents of letter Ex.C4 does not reflect the correct position qua charging of excess amount of Rs.7980/- from him even after remitting the amount of Rs.3146/- and as such, complaint filed on false facts virtually. Rather, as already referred above, the current bill of Rs.4308/- has been paid and in addition thereto amount of Rs.3146/- remitted and as such, balance amount of Rs.3731/- rightly claimed from the complainant.

8.                Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Vinod Bala)                              (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                      President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:19.09.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.