Punjab

Sangrur

CC/27/2019

Mohinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Vikram Manchanda

10 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR      

                                                             

                                               

                                                                                         Complaint No.     27  

                                                                                         Instituted on:  23.1.2019  

                                                                                         Decided on:    10.01.2020

 

Mohinder Singh aged 60 years son of Budh Singh, resident of Village Hariau, Tehsil Lehra, District Sangrur.

           

                                                …. Complainant  

                                Versus

 

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its C.M.D.

2.       Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, City Lehragaga (Division Code S77 Lehragaga City), District Sangrur.

                                          ..Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :         Shri Vikram Manchanda,Adv.            

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES              : Ms.Rajni Gandhi, Advocate                          

 

Quorum:   Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                             Ms.Vandana Sidhu, Member

                 Shri V.K.Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Shri V.K.Gulati, Member.

      

1.             Shri Mohinder Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that a he is a consumer of domestic electric connection bearing account number S77HA660689H and the complainant is covered under BPL scheme of the Govt.  The connected load of the complainant is 1.26 KW and the consumption remains about 300-500 units bimonthly.  Further case of the complainant is that his meter was burnt and as such he approached the OP number 2 who got deposited Rs.520/- vide receipt dated 19.3.2018.  Thereafter the OPs sent the bill dated 19.7.2018 for Rs.33,390/- by mentioning the consumption of 3426 units by showing ‘R’ status.   Thereafter the complainant approached the Dispute Settlement Committee and deposited Rs.5000/- on 13.8.2018.  Thereafter the complainant received another bill dated 13.9.2018 for Rs.40,490/- and further received bill dated 9.1.2019 for Rs.57,130/- which are said to be wrong and illegal. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the illegal bills dated 19.7.2018 for Rs.33390/-, bill dated 13.9.2018 for Rs.40,490/- and bill dated 9.1.2019 for Rs.57,130/- and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the connection in question under BPL scheme.  It is stated further that the connection of the complainant was checked on 19.12.2018 by the authorized officer and found that the complainant was using 1.26 KW load against the sanctioned load of 0.34 KW. It is admitted that the Ops issued bill for Rs.33,390/- and Rs.40,490/- and the bill for Rs.57,130/- to the complainant, which are said to be legal.  It is stated further that the complainant has not obeyed the order of the Forum to deposit 50% of the bill as directed by this Forum. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 copies of documents and closed evidence.

4.             We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the case file. 

5.             It is admitted fact between the parties that the electric connection of the complainant was issued under BPL scheme and the connection was checked by the officials of the OPs on 19.12.2017 vide checking register number 28/3672 dated 19.12.2017, Ex.OP-2 and connected load was found to be 1.26 KW, whereas the sanctioned load was 0.34 KW.  As per the document Ex.OP-3 the connected load of the complainant was found to be 3.70 times that of the sanctioned load and the consumption has been computed as per the increased load.  Further the OPs have submitted that the complainant even failed to deposit 50% of the bill amount as ordered by this Forum to avoid disconnection of the electricity connection.  In the circumstances, we find that the amount demanded by the OPs from the complainant is legal and genuine and is required to be paid by the complainant.

6.             In the sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.    A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                  

                Pronounced.

                January 10,2020.

 

 

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Vandana Sidhu) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

                 Member                   Member                 President