Punjab

Sangrur

CC/445/2016

Hans Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri Jarnail Singh Gogi

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 445                                                                                        

                                                                  Instituted on:   12.07.2016                                                                                 

                                                                  Decided on:    21.12.2016

 

Hans Raj son of Shri Ram Singh resident of village Naudharani Tehsil Malerkotla District Sangrur.     

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

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

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

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Jarnail Singh  Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES         :     Ms. Rajni Gandhi  Advocate                         

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

1.             Hans Raj, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he being the beneficiary is using  the domestic electric connection bearing account number L36ND310053A which is in the name of his deceased father. Punjab Govt. has exempted 200 units of electricity for one month to S.C. category. The complainant falls within the said category. The OPs imposed an amount of Rs.5426/-  as sundry charges in the bill dated 12.05.2016 without disclosing any reason. The complainant has been regularly paying the electricity bills and nothing is due against him.  The complainant requested the OPs to withdraw the illegal  demand of sundry charges but OPs refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to withdraw/ quash the demand of sundry charges of Rs.5426/-  raised under bill dated 12.05.2016,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objection on the ground of concealment of material facts has been taken up. On merits, it is submitted that  consumption of 200 units are exempted to SC category.  It is denied that nothing was due against the complainant. On inquiry , the complainant was told that the amount of Rs.5426/-  is the balance amount of  another meter no. ND 31/379M.  The copy of PDCO  was also supplied to the complainant at that time.  It is further submitted that reasons of the amount of Rs.5426/-  was already clear to the complainant  so there was no necessity left to give the reply of the notice. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the  part of the OPs.   

3.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs1&2/1 to Ex.OPs1&2/5 and closed evidence.

4.             It is specific case of the complainant that  an amount of Rs.5426/- being sundry charges was raised by the Ops  under bill dated 12.05.2016  without disclosing any reason which is Ex.C-2 on record whereas he belongs to SC category and Punjab Govt. has exempted the 200 units of electricity for one month to the S.C. category.  On the other hand,  OPs have admitted that an amount of Rs.5426/-  being sundry charges was raised by them on account of balance  amount of another meter  no. ND 31/379M and  copy of the PDCO was also supplied to the complainant at  that time.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on record and  after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Ops have produced on record copy of bill ledger Ex.OPs1&2/3 which shows that an amount of Rs.5500/-  was due  on 05.05.2012 against father of the complainant Ram Singh in whose name another  electricity connection  stands and due to non-payment of that amount a PDCO number 200 dated 21.09.2012 was issued to  Shri Ram Singh son of Isher Singh father of the complainant.  It clearly shows that the demand is related to the year 2012. It is settled that  as per Clause 32 (2) of the Electricity Supply Code of PSPCL, the OPs cannot recover the amount which is related to more than two years old from the demand. As such, we feel that the OPs cannot recover the disputed demand of Rs.5426/- raised under the bill dated 12.05.2016.      

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the OPs themselves violating their own instructions  and by raising the said demand OPs are at own fault  and deficient in service. Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs not to recover the amount  i.e. Rs.5426/- raised under bill dated 12.05.2016. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                December 21, 2016

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg)   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                              

Member            Member                         President

 

 

 

BBS/-