Punjab

Sangrur

CC/381/2018

Taresm Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Anil Kumar Gupta

20 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                             

                                               

                                                                           Complaint No. 381  

                                                                           Instituted On:  17.09.2018 

                                                                           Decided On:    20.05.2019

 

Tarsem Singh aged about 58 years son of Sh. Harbans Singh, retired employee of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, resident of Hareri Road, Ram Basti, Sangrur.

           

                                                …. Complainant  

                                Versus

 

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman and Managing Director.

2.       Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Badrukhan, Tehsil & District Sangrur.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT    :Shri  Anil Gupta,   Advocate                         

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES    :   Shri Hitesh Jindal, Advocate                         

Quorum              

                            

Vinod Kumar Gulati,   PresidingMember

Manisha, Member

 

ORDER:   

 

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

 

1.             Shri Tarsem Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he is a consumer of the OPs having an electric connection bearing account number S24RB560802 and has been regularly paying the bills of electricity.  The complainant was surprised to receive a bill dated 17.7.2018 whereby an amount of Rs.35,563/- were demanded on account of sundry charges and actual consumption of 1094 units and on enquiry, it was told that sundry charges were added in the bill in question.  Further case of the complainant is that again the complainant received bill dated 8.9.2018 in the month of August, 2018 vide which the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.41,575/- on account of sundry charges, though the complainant represented to remove the sundry charges i.e. Rs.15,469/- plus Rs.12621/-+ Rs.3095/- from the bill, but all in vain.  Though the complainant approached the Ops so many times to withdraw the demand in question, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to quash the demand of sundry charges raised vide bill dated 8.9.2018 and further directed not to disconnect the electricity connection 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, that the complainant has not cause of action and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands  On merits, it is admitted that the meter was installed in the name of father of the complainant namely Harbans Singh and used by the complainant. The complainant was working as SSA with the OP number 1 and was retired from the services of the department on 30.09.2012. The complainant obtained the concession in the charges of electricity supply  being employee of the OP number 1.  However, after the retirement from the service, the complainant is not entitled for the concession in electricity tariff, but he availed such concession upto April 2018, as such the department is entitled to recover the concession charges from the complainant from the date of his retirement till April, 2018. The department calculated the concession charges illegally obtained by the complainant from July 2016 to April 2018 as Rs.15,443/- which were recoverable from the department and further the department has right to recover the concession charges from October 2012 to June 2016 which are Rs.23,670/-.  As such, it is stated that the department has rightly raised the demand against the complainant.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C/1 to Ex.C/4 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for Ops has produced Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed evidence.

 

4.             From the perusal of the complaint as well as the reply submitted by the OPs, it has been observed that the OPs raised the demand to recover the concession charges from the complainant into two parts i.e. one from October 2012 to June 2016, which are Rs.23,670/- and the other one from July 2016 to April 2018, which are Rs.15,443/-.  From the electricity bills submitted by the OPs along with the written arguments, it has been observed that both the above said charges were continued to be added and demanded from the complainant from the billing cycle 2/3/2018 onwards, but the complainant instead of depositing the charges of Rs.15,443/-, when it was in the knowledge of the complainant as mentioned in his complaint, he preferred to lodge the complaint before the Forum for quashing this as well as the previous demand of Rs.23,670/-.  Further the complainant has also produced on record the bill from 17.5.2018 to 17.7.2018, in which arrears of current year have also been mentioned to be paid by the complainant. 

 

5.             During the arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the demand raised by the OPs should be quashed, but the learned counsel for the Ops has argued that whole of the amount raised by the OPs is recoverable from the complainant as he was illegally enjoying the electricity concession after his retirement though he was in the know that he was befooling the OPs by enjoying the privilege for which he was not entitled to. He further argued that if the amount of Rs.23,670/- raised by the OPs from the period from October  2012 to June 2016 is not recoverable, another amount of Rs.15,443/- is recoverable from the complainant not being barred by the limitation. 

 

 

6.             As a sequel of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with a direction to the OP number 1 to withdraw the demand of Rs.23,670/- for the period from October 2012 to June 2016.  Further the Ops are directed to recover this amount of Rs.15,443/- from the officer/officials (AEE/AE, Revenue Accountant and the ledger keeper) posted in the sub division at that time. A copy of the order be issued to the parties free of charge.  A copy of this order be also sent by registered post to the Chief Auditor, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala for necessary action in the matter. File be consigned to records.

               

                Pronounced.

                May 20, 2019.

                                            

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                   Presiding Member

 

 

                                                        (Manisha)

                                                        Member