DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 108
Instituted on: 21.03.2017
Decided on: 06.07.2017
Chandrawati aged about 64 years wd/o Bant Ram, R/O H.No.329, Ward No.9, Dashmesh Nagar, Indra Basti, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPC Limited, Sub Division, Sohian Road, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
3. SDO, PSPCL, Sohian Road, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri M.K.Satija, Advocate.
For opposite parties : Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Smt. Chandrawati, 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 the husband of the complainant, namely, Shri Bant Ram got installed a DS electricity connection bearing account number S46RA670195W and he died on 12th March, 20015 and since then the complainant is using the connection and paying the electricity bills regularly being his legal heir. The complainant is aggrieved on receiving the excessive bill dated 19.9.2016 for Rs.26,100/- whereas her actual consumption was 1060 units. As such, the complainant approached the Ops, but the Ops did not correct the bill despite her repeated visits to the OPs. Against the above said bill, the complainant also deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/-. It is further stated that the connection of the complainant was also disconnected on 19.3.2017. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to correct the alleged disputed bills dated 19.9.2016 and 19.3.2017 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply of the complaint, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation. On merits, it is admitted that the connection in question is in the name of Bant Ram son of Mohan Lal. It is stated further that due to technical error in the billing system, bills of about 350 consumers including the complainant were not generated/charged as per the actual reading from December, 2014 and in some cases the bills were charged in excess and on lower side. Thereafter the Ops rectified the error and overhauled the accounts of such consumers including the complainant. As the bills were charged on lower side from the complainant, so her account was overhauled from 25.12.2014 to 19.7.2016 during which 4663 units were consumed and bill dated 13.8.2016 was issued by the Ops to the complainant for this period for amount of Rs.31,336/- and later on the amount has been charged as arrears in the next bills. The amount so deposited has been adjusted and there is nothing wrong on the part of the OPs. The other averments in the complaint have been denied in toto by the Ops and any deficiency in service has also been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 affidavits and copies of bills and documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.
4. We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the 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 as she is the wife of the deceased Bant Ram, who was the earlier consumer of the Ops. The complainant has disputed the demand of Rs.26,100/- raised vide bill dated 19.9.2016 being wrong and illegal as the consumption was only 1060 units and against the said amount the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- on 7.12.2016. The complainant has further alleged that the Ops have wrongly and without any basis charged the excess amount from the complainant and as such has prayed for withdrawal of the bills dated 19.9.2016 and 19.3.2016. On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that due to technical error in the billing system, bills of about 350 consumers including the complainant were not generated/charged as per the actual reading from December, 2014 and thereafter the same was overhauled from 25.12.2014 to 19.7.2016 and as such the account of the complainant was also overhauled from 25.12.2014 to 19.7.2016 during which 4663 units were consumed (i.e. 18259-13596) and bill dated 13.8.2016 was issued by the Ops for Rs.31,336/- and later on the said amount was charged as arrears. To support such a contention, reliance can also be placed on the document Ex.Op-7 and Ex.OP-8. Further the above said averments have also been supported by the affidavit of Harbant Singh, AE, which is on record as Ex.OP-1. Under the circumstances, we feel that there is nothing wrong on the part of the Ops by overhauling the account of the complainant, which was due to technical error and the said demand has rightly been raised. As such, we find no case made out for any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
6. In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
July 6, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
