| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR. Complaint No.269 of 2018 Date of Instt.19.06.2018 Date of Decision: 27.04.2021 Prem Singh r/o 49, Deol Nagar, Jalandhar. ….. Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Through its Authorized Signatory. Having its Registered Office at The Mall, Patiala. 2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Through its, Chief Engineer Model Town, Jalandhar. ..…Opposite parties Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM: SH. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT MRS. JYOTSNA, MEMBER ARGUED BY: For Complainant : Sh. A. K. Gandhi, Advocate. For OPs : Sh. S. K. S. Chhabra, Advocate. ORDER:- KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs. The OPs issued the contract account No.3001507288 and consumer No.J71PF252341K to the complainant. The complainant has been regularly paying the electricity bills issued by the OPs. The complainant has been working as a principal and is having good reputation in the Society. The complainant is a victim of the malpractice exercise by the OPs. That the complainant got installed the electricity connection in his house and meter pertaining to the consumption of the electricity has installed on the outside of his residence. In November2014, the officials of the OPs removed the earlier electric meter of the complainant residence without disclosing to the complainant and without any reason. The officials of the OPs installed the new meter in the place of earlier electricity meter. The complainant made a complaint in this regard to the SDO, Jalandhar, which was duly received by the officials of OPs. The OPs duly issued the complaint No.1260 dated 01.12.2014 to the complainant. But no action was taken by the OPs against the earring officials nor the complainant was called by the OPs during the inspection of the electric meter at M.E. Lab. That in October, 2017 the electric meter of the complainant residence was again replaced with the new electric meter by the officials of the OPs, without the consent of the complainant and without disclosing the same to the complainant in his absence. The complainant again agitated matter with the Additional Engineer of the OPs, but no action was taken against the guilty officials by the OPs. In the March 2017, the OPs supplied a letter dated 22.03.2017 to the complainant. As per the letter dated 22.03.2017 the complainant came to know that the OPs charged the electricity bills from the complainant for the year 2016-17 under M-Code which clearly shows that the officials of the OPs installed the faulty meter intentionally outside the premises of the complainant and this fact was concealed by the OPs from the complainant. The complainant also shocked to read a letter 22.03.2017 that as per letter dated 22.03.2017 the complainant has not deposited single expenses of electricity for the year 2016-17, which is totally wrong and incorrect one. It is worthwhile to mention here that the complainant regularly paid the electricity bill to the OPs against the receipt. The complainant also shocked to read a letter dated 22.07.2017 that the OPs are also claiming Rs.83,700/- from the complainant as previous due’s. The complainant is not liable to pay any due’s to the OPs which were arises due to the own negligence of the officials of the OPs. That on receiving the letter dated 22.03.2017 the complainant challenged the decision of the OPs before SDC of the OPs by depositing Rs.16,740/- as per the pre-condition of the OPs. The complainant attended the proceedings of the SDC on 28.12.2017, wherein the SDC directed the OPs to submit certain documents for inspection of the SDC and further directed the OPs to submit the documents 7 days before the next meeting of the SDC and the proceedings of the SDC was adjourned for next hearing. But date of next hearing was not informed to the complainant by the SDC and it was informed to the complainant that next date of the proceeding of the SDC will be informed to the complainant latter on. But the officials of the SDC in connivance with the officials of the OPs conducted the proceeding of the SDC in his absence without giving any notice of the proceeding to the complainant on 30.01.2018. On 30.01.2018 the SDC while rejecting the demand of the complainant, accepted the demand of the OPs being lawful one. That the decision dated 30.01.2018 is unlawful one and against the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the complainant. So, the complainant is not liable to pay any amount to the OPs being illegal one. It is worthwhile to mention here that made a complaint in this regard to the chief Engineer, Jalandhar who written a letter dated 09.04.2018 in this regard to the Additional Chief Engineer. The complainant several times approached to the OPs for the withdrawal of the unlawful demand raised by the OPs, but the official of the OPs flatly refused to entertain the lawful demand of the complainant and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to withdraw the unlawful demand of Rs.83,700/- from the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith interest for causing mental tension and harassment. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and has been filed just to harass the answering OPs. That the complaint filed by the complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant intentionally and deliberately gave the wrong address of the office chief engineer in the complaint. It is further alleged that this Forum is having no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. It is pertinent to mention here that the consumer already extorted the remedy before the DSC (Dispute Settlement Committee). It is worthwhile to mention here that the dispute settlement committee already rejected the claim of the consumer and held that the amount demanded from the Consumer is legal and valid one. The complainant not approached the Court with clean hands and intentionally and deliberately concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OP, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement. In order to prove his case, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the OP gave noting on the last page of written reply that he does not want to submit any document alongwith written reply, so as per amended rule, either of the party can file document alongwith pleadings, but not later on. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesand have also gone through the case file very carefully. At the outset learned counsel for the OPs submitted that the complainant approached for redressal of his grievance before Disputes Settlement Committee and the matter was decided by the said Committee vide order dated 30.01.2018. If the complainant was not satisfied with the order passed by the Said Committee then as per Regulation No.144 of the Sales Regulations of the PSPCL, he could have filed an appeal against the said order before the Higher Authority, but instead of doing so, he has filed the present complaint on 19.06.2018 before this Forum/Commission, which is not maintainable. Therefore, same be dismissed with cost. From the documents placed on record by complainant and admission by complainant, it is apparent that complainant had already approached the DSC for redressal his grievance. Now, the point for consideration before us is as to whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum/Commission, when the case of the complainant had already been considered and decided by Dispute Settlement Committee constituted by PSPCL? The legal position in this respect is no longer res-integra. It is settled proposition of law that in case complainant – consumer chooses to avail the remedy provided by the PSPCL to get his/her grievance redressed, then complainant cannot approach the District Forum/Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. It is also settled that in case the complainant is not satisfied with the decision of the DSC, he/she has a right to file an appeal against the said order under Regulation No.144 of the Sales Regulations of the PSPCL but cannot approach the District Forum/Commission by way of filing a fresh complaint. Since, the complainant had already availed the remedy provided by PSPCL to get him grievance redressed and if he was not satisfied with the decision of the DSC, then he had a right to file an appeal against the said order under Regulation No.144 of the Sales Regulation of the PSPCL, but cannot approach the District Forum/Commission by way of filing fresh complaint for redressal of his grievance. Reliance in this connection is placed on the case titled as Punjab State Electricity Board & others vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others, 2005 (3) C.L.T. 491. Wherein, The Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has held that once the complainant chooses to avail the remedy provided by the PSEB to get his grievance redressed, then he cannot approach the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act-having chosen one remedy, the consumer can not resort to the other remedy. In the case of Punjab State Electricity Board through Sr. Executive Engineer vs. Satish Kumar 2007 (1) C.L.T. 198, The Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has held that Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section-3, complainant has chosen to avail remedy available to him by approaching the Disputes Settlement Committee-after decision of the committee where she failed, he cannot come to the Fora under the act, once a remedy is chosen that must be taken to its logical end. In the light of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by Prem Singh – complainant is disposed of. The complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate authority for Redressal of his grievances, as per law, if so advised. No order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work and spread of Covid-19. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission 27th of April 2021 Kuljit Singh (President) Jyotsna (Member) | |
