BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.431 of 2015

Date of Instt. 01.10.2015

Date of Decision : 09.06.2016

Rajinder Arora aged about 40 years son of Late Sh.Dharampal, R/o Wardf No.13, House No.120, Arora Mohalla, Bhogpur, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Bhogpur through its SDO.

2.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Bhogpur through its XEN.

3.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, the Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh.Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.KL Dua Adv., counsel for OPs.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (herein called as OPs) on the averments that complainant is beneficiary of electricity connection bearing account No.H11CD380698F under DS category in the name of mother of complainant Late Smt.Shanti Devi. Complainant submitted that he challenged the functioning of his electricity meter by depositing meter challenge fee Rs.120/-. Complainant also deposited Rs.10/- as bill challenge fee as complainant has received excessive bills of electricity consumption but the OP did not do needful and they did not change the meter of the complainant. The complainant deposited the corrected bills to avoid disconnection of electricity connection. On 14.7.2014 and 8.6.2014 he approached the OP No.1 with written request and after various reminders, OPs failed to resolve his complaint. Complainant submitted that OPs harassed the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay damages and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that no doubt the complainant challenged the functioning of the meter by depositing meter challenge fee and also challenged the bills by depositing fee of Rs.10/-. Officials of the OP in order to get the meter of the complainant checked in ME Lab went to remove the meter of the complainant but complainant did not allow the officials of the OP to remove the meter. OP issued MCO dated 10.10.2013 and the meter of the complainant was removed on 27.3.2014 in the presence of the complainant and the complainant himself signed the said MCO. The complainant also gave consent letter that he has no objection if the meter in question is checked in ME Lab in the absence of complainant. Resultantly, the meter of the complainant was checked in ME Lab on 7.10.2015 and same was found correct. The complainant was directed vide letter No.2180 dated 4.11.2015 to deposit the balance amount of the bill but the complainant filed the present complaint without any reason just to harass the OPs.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP8 and closed evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant is beneficiary of electricity connection bearing account No.H11CD380698F under DS category in the name of mother of complainant Late Smt.Shanti Devi. Complainant submitted that he challenged the functioning of his electricity meter by depositing meter challenge fee Rs.120/- vide receipt No.225 Ex.C2. Complainant also deposited Rs.10/- vide receipt No.226 as bill challenge fee as complainant has received excessive bills of electricity consumption but the OPs did not do the needful and they did not change the meter of the complainant. The complainant deposited the corrected bills to avoid disconnection of electricity connection. Complainant wrote letters dated 8.10.2013 Ex.C1, dated 14.7.2014 Ex.C3, dated 17.4.2015 Ex.C4, dated 8.6.2015 Ex.C5, dated 5.8.2015 Ex.C6 and the complainant deposited the balance amount also vide letter dated 3.2.2016 Ex.C13. Complainant also received letter from OPs dated 3.2.2016 Ex.C14, dated 10.2.2016 Ex.C15. Complainant submitted that the OPs harassed the complainant and all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the OPs is that no doubt the complainant challenged the functioning of the meter by depositing meter challenging fee and also challenged the bills by depositing fee Rs.10/- vide receipt Ex.C2. Officials of the OP in order to get the meter of the complainant checked in ME Lab, went to remove the meter of the complainant but complainant did not allow the officials of the OP to remove the meter as is evidence from the joint report dated 14.12.2013, 15.2.2014 and 16.2.2014 Ex.OP3. OP issued MCO dated 10.10.2013 Ex.OP6 and the meter of the complainant was removed on 27.3.2014 in the presence of the complainant and the complainant himself signed the said MCO Ex.OP6. The complainant also gave consent letter Ex.OP7 that he has no objection if the meter in question is checked in ME Lab in the absence of complainant. Resultantly, the meter of the complainant was checked in ME Lab on 7.10.2015 and same was found correct as per report Ex.OP4 and Ex.OP5. Then the complainant was directed vide letter No.2180 dated 4.11.2015 Ex.OP1 to deposit the balance amount of the bill but the complainant filed the present complaint without any reason just to harass the OPs. Learned counsel for the OPs submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant was of the view that he has been receiving excessive bills of electricity consumption from the OPs. Resultantly, he challenged the functioning of the meter vide application dated 8.10.2013 Ex.C1 and deposited meter challenge fee Rs.120/- vide receipt No.225 Ex.C2 and also challenged the bills by depositing fee Rs.10/- vide receipt No.226 Ex.C2/A and the complainant requested that till the meter is removed and got checked in ME Lab, he be issued minimum charges bill, vide application Ex.C1. Consequently, OPs issued MCO dated 10.10.2013 Ex.OP6 and the officials of the OPs visited the premises of the complainant on 14.12.2013, 15.2.2014 and then on 16.2.2014 as per report Ex.OP3 but the complainant did not allow the officials of the OP to remove the challenged meter. Ultimately, the meter of the complainant was removed on 27.3.2014 in the presence of the complainant and he duly signed this MCO Ex.OP6. Complainant also gave self declaration/consent letter Ex.OP7 to the effect that he has no objection if the meter of the complainant is checked in his absence. The said letter Ex.OP7 is also counter signed by Municipal Councilor of ward No.2. Resultantly, the meter of the complainant was checked in ME Lab on 7.10.2015 and the same was found correct. Earlier, the complainant did not deposit the full amount of the bills issued to him, rather he deposited partial amount of the bills. So, after receipt of the report of ME Lab, OPs issued letter No.2180 dated 4.11.2015 Ex.OP1 to the complainant to deposit the balance amount of Rs.8444/- and the complainant deposited this amount vide receipt Ex.C17. The report of ME Lab was sent to the complainant but the same was returned with the remarks that the complainant refused to receive the same. Again the report was sent to the complainant through registered post but the same was also received back with the remarks that the house of the complainant is locked and then as per report in letter Ex.C14 produced by complainant himself, the report was sent to the complainant again through this letter Ex.C14, which was duly received by the complainant. So, all this shows that the OPs have charged the aforesaid amount as per actual consumption of the electricity made by complainant. As such, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant. Complaint is, therefore, without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

09.06.2016 Member President