DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 134

 Instituted on:   28.03.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     05.04.2021

Kesho Ram son of Hari Chand, Pakki Gali, Main Bazar, Sherpur, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

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

2.     SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division, L-85, Sherpur-1, Distt. 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

FACTS

1.             Shri Kesho Ram,  complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as he had obtained one electric connection bearing account number L85SB110037P at his garment shop owned by President Gurudwara sahib and has been paying the electricity bills regularly.  Further it is averred that the average consumption of complainant used to be around 100/150 units for two months and meter status was OK till September 2018 as is evident from the electricity bills.  Further case of the complainant is that in the month of September, 2018 the complainant was shocked to receive a bill of 8281 units which is much higher than the previous bills.  Moreover the complainant uses only lights at the shop and there is no air conditioner or refrigerator at the shop of the complainant.  After receipt of the bill the complainant approached the Ops, but nothing was done.  Thus, 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.45550/- vide bill dated 11.3.2019 and not to disconnect the connection of the complainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

WRITTEN VERSION

2.             In reply filed by the OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi, that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has no cause of action to file the complaint, that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unnecessary litigation and  that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint. 

3.             On merits, it is stated that the complainant is neither the owner of shop where the electric connection in question is installed nor the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as the shop in question is ownership of Gurudwara Sahib and the electric connection is installed in the name of President Gurudwara Sahib.  Further it is admitted that the bill in question dated 15.9.2018 was issued and that the bill dated 15.9.2018 was charged on ’I’ code and the amount was charged on average basis.  It is further averred that the bill is generated in the computer. It is stated further that the bill dated 15.11.2018 was also issued on ‘I’ code, but as there was no variation in the billing cycle for Nov, 2018 and next billing cycle i.e. January, 2019 so the bill dated 14.1.2019 was issued to the complainant showing the meter status as ‘O’ i.e. meter is OK.  It is further stated that the bills have been rightly issued to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

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

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant obtained one electric connection bearing account number L85SB110037P at his shop and has been paying the electricity bills regularly.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the average consumption of complainant used to be around 100/150 units for two months and meter status was OK till September 2018. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that in the month of September, 2018 the complainant was shocked to receive a bill of 8281 units whereas old consumption is shown to be 3663 units  and the complainant has further argued that the complainant has been regularly paying the electricity bills and there is no dues against the complainant. 

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7.             In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is regularly paying the bills and the Ops are accepting the bills, as such, there is no dispute that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs.

8.             To prove this case, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.C-1 and has deposed as per the complaint. Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 are the bills of electricity. Ex.C-2 is the bill dated 15.11.2018 and the meter is shown to be OK and bill amount is Rs.8200/-, Ex.C-3 is bill dated 15.9.2018 for Rs.6420/-, Ex.C-4 is bill dated 14.1.2019 for Rs.46420/- in which reading has been shown as 3663 units, Ex.C-5 is bill dated 11.3.2019 for Rs.45550/-, Ex.C-6 is letter written to SDO, PSPCL by the complainant, Ex.C-7 is the reading data, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 are also bills of electricity.

9.             On the other hand, Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate has tendered the affidavit Ex.OP/1  of Shri Sukhchain Singh, AEE and has deposed as per the written version, Ex.OP/2 is the bill dated 20.1.2018 for Rs.9910/-, Ex.OP/3 is the bill dated 20.3.2018 for Rs.5460/-, Ex.OP/4 is bill dated 11.5.2018 for Rs.3972/-, Ex.OP/5 is bill dated 18.7.2018 for Rs.4566/-, Ex.OP/6 is bill dated 15.9.2018 for Rs.6403/-, Ex.OP/7 is bill dated 1511.2018 for Rs.6522/-, Ex.OP/8is bill dated 14.1.2019 for Rs.45879/- and Ex.OP/9 is bill dated 11.3.2019 for Rs.45550/-.

10.            The disputed bill is dated 11.3.2019 which is Ex.C-5, but as already discussed above all these previous bills have been placed on the file.  Previously all the bills were around Rs.5000/-, Rs.6000/-, Rs.7000/- and Rs.8000/-, but suddenly the bill Ex.C-5 for Rs.45,500/- was sent to the complainant. No justification has been given by the OPs that how suddenly the above said bill dated 11.3.2019 was sent to the complainant. It is a case of meter jumping and for that the complainant cannot be punished.

11.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the bill dated 11.3.2019 for Rs.45,550/- and issue a fresh bill after taking average of consumption of previous 24 months and the complainant shall deposit the same within a period of one month.  In the circumstances of the case, 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.

                        April 5, 2021.

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                  President