Punjab

Sangrur

CC/144/2017

Gurwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Ramit Pathak

03 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                           

                                                Complaint No.    144

                                                Instituted on:      07.04.2017

                                                Decided on:       03.08.2017

 

Gurinder Singh son of Jarnail Singh, resident of Village Mangwal, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its MD.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer (SDO), PSPCL  Sub Division (Rural) Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For Ops                    :               Shri Mohit Verma, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurinder 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 MN-57-1510 and the complainant has been paying the bills regularly to the OPs as sent by the Ops.  Further case of the complainant is that old meter of the complainant was changed by the Ops being defective one after depositing the necessary fee and at the time of removal of the meter, its reading was at 10286 units.  Further case of the complainant is that after the change of meter, the Ops sent the first bill dated 16.11.2016 for 250 units and further claimed an amount of Rs.1,179,180/- in total including the arrears of the previous year and again thereafter the Ops issued bill for Rs.1,80,586/- and lastly the Ops sent bill dated 17.3.2017 whereby claimed an amount of Rs.1,82,894/- from the complainant, as such, the complainant visited the OP number 2 for correction of the bill, but the OP number 2 to refused to make any correction and threatened to face disconnection of the electric connection, if the bill is not deposited.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw/quash the bill dated 17.3.2017 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 complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and that the complaint is false and frivolous one and the same be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs under the connection in question. It has been stated further that the bill has rightly been issued to the complainant as per the actual consumption.  The actual facts are that on the basis of key Exception report it was found that the meter of the complainant was burnt in the month of August 2016 and due to the said reason, the meter was changed in the month of August, 2016 vide MCO dated 8.8.2016, which was effected on 27.10.2016 and the meter reading at the time of removal of the meter was 10286 units. It is further stated that the said meter was duly packed as per the rules and the meter in question is yet to be checked and the complaint is said to be pre mature.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6  copies of bills and receipts and Ex.C-7 photograph and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-16 copies of bills 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 part acceptance, 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 complainant has contended vehemently that the OPs have raised a demand of Rs.1,82,894/- vide bill dated 17.3.2017, which is said to be illegal  one and without any basis, as such, the complainant approached OP number 2 for withdrawal of the demand, but all in vain.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the demand has rightly been raised on account of consumption only as per the meter reading as the meter of the complainant was burnt and the same was changed vide MCO dated 27.10.2016 and at the time of change of the meter its reading was 10286 units.  The learned counsel for the OPs has further contended vehemently that the removed meter in question is still lying packed and the same has not been checked in the ME laboratory, as such it is contended further that the complaint is premature one and the same should be dismissed with special costs.  We have perused the original bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4, but the same are not readable, but no Photostat copy of the bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 has not been provided on record.  The learned counsel for the opposite party has further vehemently contended that the complainant is a defaulter as he did not deposit the previous bills. Ex.OP-4 is the copy of electricity bill dated 3.3.2015 for Rs.110750/- and similarly Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-16 are the copies of the bills of further period, but the same again have not been deposited by the complainant. Ex.OP-13 is the copy of bill dated 9.3.2017 for Rs.187316/-, which has disputed the complainant. 

 

 

6.             After carefully perusal of the complaint, reply and evidence, it reveals that the complainant has not been depositing the bills of electricity regularly for a long period, but the fact remains that if the complainant was not paying the bills for such a long period, then why the Ops did not disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant for non payment of the electricity consumption charges.  Now, it has come to our notice that the meter of the complainant was burnt and the same was replaced vide MCO dated 8.8.2016 which was effected on 27.10.2016 and thereafter the electricity meter in question was not checked in the ME laboratory as per the rules of the OPs.  Now, we feel that ends of justice would be met if first of all the removed meter be checked in the ME laboratory as per the rules and thereafter issue a notice to the complainant accordingly for the demand of the OPs including non billed consumption of electricity.

 

 

7.             In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the demand of  Rs.1,82,894/- raised vide bill dated 17.3.2017. Further opposite parties are directed to take necessary appropriate action against the concerned officials, who are responsible for keeping the dismantled meter for such a long time and for not sending the same to the ME laboratory for its checking and not effecting the MCO dated 8.8.2016 as per the regulations of the PSPCL. However, it will be open for the Ops to raise a fresh demand after checking of the  disputed electricity meter in the ME laboratory as per the rules.  In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

 

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 3, 2017.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                         Member