DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 711
Instituted on: 23.12.2016
Decided on: 21.04.2017
Bhoop Singh son of Shri Kehar Singh, resident of Krishanpura Road, Shivam Colony, Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation ltd. The Mall, Patiala through its CMD.
2. Asstt. Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Sub Urban Sub Division, Sangrur, Distt. Sangrur.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Adv.
For Ops : Ms.Rajni Gandhi, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Bhoop 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 the consumer of the Ops vide domestic electricity connection number S46KP682456N and has been paying the bills regularly. The grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 2 sent a wrong bill dated 6.10.2016 for Rs.1,29,200/- for the period from 30.5.2016 to 6.10.2016 for 494 days, wherein the Ops added an amount of Rs.80309/- as current cycle charges, Rs.45,111/- as sundry charges and Rs.2024/- as arrears of previous financial year and Rs.1754/- on account of current financial year, despite the fact the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.40,000/- on 26.10.2016 with the OP. Further case of the complainant is that the Ops now again sent a fresh bill dated 12.12.2016 for Rs.97,880/- against consumption of 725 units. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant deposited Rs.5160/- on 9.4.2015, Rs.10,000/- on 1.4.2016, Rs.10,000/- on 16.6.2016 and Rs.40,000/- on 26.10.2016. Further grievance of the complainant is that though he approached the Ops to explain about the charges so levied in the bill, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.97,880/- raised through bill dated 12.12.2016 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by Ops, it has been admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the OP, but it has been denied that the complainant has been paying the bills regularly. It has been denied that the bill dated 6.10.2016 is illegal because the bill sent to the complainant was the overhaul exemption/units used by the complainant from 30.5.2015 to 6.10.2016 i.e. for 494 days. It has been denied that the amount so deposited by the complainant was not adjusted at all by the Ops. It is stated that the demand of Rs.97880/- raised vide bill dated 12.12.2016 is correct one as the complainant was clarified about the complete details of both the bills dated 6.10.2016 and 12.12.2016. It is further stated that the audit party clearly mentioned in the register dated 18.12.2015 that in the place of taking amount from the complainant, it was inadvertently reversed to the complainant and the complainant wants to take the benefit of the clerical mistake. All the amounts have been adjusted properly in the accounts and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill dated 12.12.2016, Ex.C-3 copy of bill dated 6.10.2016, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-10 copies of bill receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-4 copies of ledger, Ex.OP-5 copy of unit consumption data, ExOP-6 copy of audit report, Ex.OP-7 and Ex.OP-8 copies of ledger, Ex.OP-9 to Ex.OP-13 copies of bills, Ex.OP-14 copy of detail of amount deposited by the complainant, Ex.OP-15 copy of detail of bill and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.
5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops vide domestic connection in question. In the present case, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the complainant is a defaulter and has not been paying the bills regularly. The learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the complainant did not pay the bills i.e. 7/13 for Rs.15,401/-, 9/13 for Rs.14,580/- and 11/13 for Rs.17,594/- meaning thereby the total of these bills comes to Rs.47,575/-. Further it is contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that thereafter the complainant even defaulted in payment i.e. the complainant paid Rs.1233/- against the bill dated 7/2014 for Rs.13,676/- and further paid Rs.1374/- against the bill dated 9/2014 for Rs.14,880/- which amount was further carried forwarded in the defaulted amount to the tune of Rs.28,556/- and further the complainant defaulted the bills dated 1/2015, 3/2015 and 5/2015 for Rs.27,808/- and thereafter the complainant did not pay the bills for Rs.5/2015 to 10/2016 for Rs.1,29,200/-, totalling Rs.1,55,767/- and the complainant deposited Rs.30,120/- vide receipts Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-10 and thereafter the amount so deposited by the complainant was reduced from the due amount. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced any receipts and bills on record since 7/2013 to 10/2016 to show that the same have been duly paid by the complainant. Further there is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not produce the same on record despite the Ops have stated that the amount relates to the previous dues. In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant himself is a wrong doer, who has not produced on record the copies of the bills/receipts to show that he had already paid all the dues to the Ops.
6. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
April 21, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
