Punjab

Sangrur

CC/493/2018

Jagmohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Sandip Kumar Goyal

01 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                         Complaint No. 493

 Instituted on:   27.11.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     01.02.2021

 

Jagmohan Singh son of Sinder Singh, resident of Village Mandvi, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its CMD.

2.     SDO, PSPCL, Sub Division, Bangan, District Sangrur.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:             :Shri  S.K.Goyal, Adv.              

For the OPs                         :Shri  Amit Goyal, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

 

ORDER:   

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

 

1.             Shri Jagmohan Singh,  complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining one electric connection bearing account number S71MD591317F at his house and has been paying the electricity bills regularly.  Further it is averred that the average consumption of the complainant for two months is for Rs.2000/-  to Rs.3000/- and meter status was OK as is evident from the regular bills issued to the complainant produced on record.  Further the complainant has averred that in the month of January/February, 2018 meter of the complainant was changed by the OPs and a new meter was installed in its place, but the OPs have issued a bill for Rs.36,370/- dated 23.10.2018 which is much higher amount than the previous, whereas reading is shown to be 4554 units out of which the complainant had already paid  upto 3258 units vide bill dated 29.08.2018.

 

2.             Further the complainant has averred that after receiving the above said bill, the complainant visited the office of OP number 2 and requested for withdrawal of the same as no irregularity on the part of the complainant was found.  Further it is averred that the removed meter was not sent to the ME laboratory and no opportunity of being heard was given to the complainant.   Further case of the complainant is that the complainant also got served a legal notice dated 09.11.2018 upon the OPs to withdraw the said demand but  the OPs did nothing.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.36370/- raised vide bill dated 23.10.2018 and not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the connection in question. It is stated further that the meter of the complainant was changed in the month of May, 2017 as the same was found to be burnt and during this period the bills were charged from the complainant on average basis.  It is further stated that the bill dated 23.10.2018 was issued to the complainant for an amount of Rs.36,370/-.  Further it is stated that meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO number 84 dated 26.4.2017 which was effected on 26.5.2017 and the meter was found to be burnt.  However the meter installed in its place also became defective and the same was changed vide MCO number 191/23024 dated 28.3.2018 effected on 31.3.2018 and during this period the bills were charged from the complainant on average basis but he did not pay the same. It is further mentioned in the reply that the new meter was installed on 31.3.2018 with initial reading of 1 unit and the bill for the month of May, 2018, June, 2018 as well as August, 2018 was charged on average basis as per C/I code respectively.   It is further averred that though consumption was recorded by the new meter however due to I code, bills were issued to the complainant on average basis, as such bill for Rs.36370/- for consumption of 4552 units was issued on 23.10.2018 and the amount already charged for the above said period was adjusted/deducted from the total payable amount, hence the amount raised in the bill dated 23.10.2018 pertaining to the charges for actual consumption.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in the month of January/February, 2018 meter of the complainant was changed by the OPs and a new meter was installed in its place, but the OPs have issued a bill for Rs.36,370/- dated 23.10.2018 which is much higher amount than the previous one.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that total consumption is 4554 units out of which the complainant had already paid  upto 3258 units vide bill dated 29.08.2018. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the bill issued to the complainant is illegal and the complainant has not consumed so much energy, as such has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

 

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the meter was defective and was changed twice.  The  learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that the bill dated 23.10.2018 issued to the complainant for Rs.36,370/-  is quite genuine and as per the consumption.  The learned counsel for Ops has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

7.             To prove his case, the complainant has filed his affidavit Ex.C-1 on the file and he has deposed as per the complaint. Vide order dated 28.11.2018 the complainant was directed to deposit fifty percent of the disputed bill. The bill dated 29.8.2018 Ex.C-3 is of 3258 units but the bill dated 23.10.2018 Ex.C-2 of Rs.36,370/- is of 4554 units.

 

8.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has tendered  affidavit of  Shri Nachhattar Singh, AE Ex.OP/1 and he has deposed as per written statement.   Ex.OP/3 and Ex.OP/4 are the  copies of meter change orders and Ex.OP/5 is the detail of consumption of energy.  The bill was sent to the complainant on average basis from 29.4.2017 to 4.3.2018 as is evident from the document Ex.OP/2.  The meter was changed on 26.05.2017 vide MCO Ex.OP/3 and the meter was again changed on 31.3.2018 vide MCO Ex.OP/4.  The bill was sent to the complainant on average basis after the meter was changed twice as per documents on record Ex.OP/5 to Ex.OP/9, so it is clear that the meter of the complainant was defective and after that the bill was sent to the complainant and after that vide order dated 28.11.2018 the disconnection of the electricity connection was stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the disputed amount demanded by the OPs. 

 

9.             From the above discussion, it is found that the complainant is liable to pay the bill dated 23.10.2018 for 4554 units as demanded by the Ops.  Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        February 1, 2021.

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                  President