DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
RBT/Consumer Complaint No.184 of 16.3.2018
Date of Decision: 24.11.2022
- Meenakshi Markan wife of Naveen Markan (Advocate) daughter Sant Ram, resident of Street No.5, Samadhi Road, Khanna only legal of Sant Ram
- Rakesh Kaushal son of Vijay Kaushal, street No.5, Samadhi Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana.
-
Versus
- SDO City Sub Division-I, Khanna (Urban), Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, office Samadhi Road, Khanna
- XEN City Sub Division-I, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Khanna
- Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary
- :
HON’BLE MR. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER
Sh. Kirpal Singh Sandhu, Adv. for complainant
Sh. Manish Midha, Adv. for OPs
-
RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that Shri Sant Ram son of Sh. Milkhi Ram was owner of house which is situated at Street No.5, Samadhi Road, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana. After the death of Sh. Sant Ram, the complainant No.1 inherited property of his father being his only legal heir. The mother of the complainant No.1 also died in the year 2014. After the death of parents of the complainant No.1, nobody is the legal heir except the complainant No.1. During his lifetime Sh. Sant Ram obtained domestic connection bearing No.3000878115 from the opposite parties in his house situated at street No.5, Samadhi Road, Khanna for a sanctioned load of 8.60 KW. After the death of parents of the complainant No,1, it is not possible for the complainant No.1 to maintain the house in question as the complainant No.1 is married and is residing at Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, which is at the distance of more than 100 Kms from Khanna. The house where the said electricity connection is fixed remains locked from the front and two small rooms of the back portion of the house is open as the complainant No.2 stays there. It is further stated that the complainant No.2 being an agent/care taker of complainant No.1 is in the possession of two small rooms, which have been given at the backside of the house, where he stays with his small family and is also the beneficiary of the electric connection No. 3000878115 from the last four years and is using the electricity as a licensee and has been paying the electricity bills regularly and a such his being a beneficiary is also a consumer of OPs. The complainant No.2 regularly deposits the electricity consumption bill whatsoever issued by the OPs, against the said electric connection . The OP sent the bills, for the period from January 2017 to March 2017 amounting of Rs.1080/- bill for the period March 2017 to May 2017 amounting of Rs.1430/-, bill for the period from 17.5.2017 to 20.07.2017 amounting of Rs. 2740/- and bill for the period 28.7.2017 to 16.10.2017 amounting of Rs.2920/-. All the consumption bills amount has been paid by the complainants to the OPs. In the month of November 2017, the OPs issued bill for the period from 16.09.2017 to 17.11.2017 amounting to Rs.48,740/- which is disputed one. The complainants were shocked to receive the bill dated 17.11.2017 issued by the OPs for the consumption of 6376 units for the amount of Rs.48,740/- which was very excessive as the complainant No.2 had not used any excess load upon the electric connection during this period and so recording of such high consumption is not possible and same has resulted, due to sudden jumping of the meter digits. The electric meter was installed in iron box by the opposite parties outside the house of the complainants under lock and key of the opposite parties and is not possible for anybody to temper with the meter. As per directions given by the opposite party the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/- vide receipt dated 27.11.2017, against the disputed bill just to avoid disconnection of electric connection. The above said amount had been deposited by the complainant in protest, the ops. The OPs had removed the old electric meter on 2.11.2017 and has not sealed or packed in the box by the opposite parties as per the guidelines of Punjab Electricity Act and Rules. After the removal of old meter, the OPs installed new meter on 29.11.2017 in the same iron box, outside the house of the complainants and thereafter opposite parties issued bill amounting to Rs.41,300/-. After receiving the bill of Rs.48,740/- caretaker of the complainant No.1 visited to the office of OP No.1 and requested to withdraw the said excessive bill and to charge the meter as the same is showing the excessive consumption. At this, the OP1 advised the complainant No.2 to challenge the meter. Upon the advise of OP1, the complainant challenged the meter by depositing the requisite fee amounting to Rs.450/- as meter challenge fees, vide receipt dated 27.11.2017 and it was told by the OPs that they would inform the date, place and time of checking the meter in ME Lab and meter will be checked in the presence of the complainant or her caretaker. The caretaker of the complainant also submitted his affidavit along with the application as per direction and performa of the OPs. The OPs did not check the electric meter of the complainants in presence of complainants nor do they gave any intimation regarding the checking of the electric meter. The complainant No.2 deposited the said amount of Rs.10,000/- with the OPs under protest. The complainants were surprised to receive letter/memo No.332 dated 19.2.2018 received on 12.3.2018 by complainant No.2 from the office of OP1, whereby the OPs have informed the complainants that the old meter of the complainants was checked in ME Lab vide challan No.555 dated 19.1.2018 and the same was found to be working correctly, so the complainants are directed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.39,337/-. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and sought the following relief:-
- To withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.48,740/- against the bill dated 17.11.2017 and also to withdraw the notice issued on 19.2.2018 along with surcharge in future and refund the amount which is made by the complainants under protest.
- To pay Rs.30,000/- on account of mental tension along with litigation expenses Rs.6600/-
- Upon notice, the learned counsel for the OPs have filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On merits, it is stated that the electric connection bearing No.3000878113 is installed in the name of Sh. Sant Ram, father of the complainant No.1 in a house situated at Street No.5, Samadhi Road, Khanna. The complainant No.2 challenged the said meter and on his request the meter was changed and it was sent to the ME Lab along with the written consent given by the complainant No.2, which he gave to the OP1 stating therein that the seal pack meter has been taken by the department for testing in ME Lab and he has no objection if the said meter is tested in the ME Lab in his absence. On the basis of the said consent letter, the meter was tested in the ME Lab on 19.1.2018 and it was reported that the pulse of the meter does not blink when checked on the basic load but on dial test the meter was properly working which means that there was no fault in the meter and the amount charged was as per reading of the meter and was correctly charged and the complainants are liable to pay the said amount. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit along with documents in support of their version and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has tendered documents and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.
5. In this complaint, the main issue is that whether the complainant is entitled to the claim or not?.
It is important to mention here that the complainant No.2 challenged the said meter and on his request the meter changed and it was sent to the ME Lab along with the written consent given by the complainant No.2, which he gave to the OP No.1 stating therein that the seal pack meter has been taken by the department for testing in the ME Lab and he has no objection if the said meter is tested in the ME Lab in his absence. After testing the meter in question, the report was given by the ME Lab vide which the meter of the complainant does not blink and working properly and the amount charged by the OP as per reading of the meter and was correctly charged. So, the complainants are not entitled to any relief against the OPs.
6. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the present complaint with no order as to cost. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
Announced
November 24, 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
President
(Ranvir Kaur)
Member
