DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 125
Instituted on: 03.04.2017
Decided on: 04.07.2017
Jasvir Singh aged about 35 years son of Labh Singh resident of Village Balwar, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its C.M.D./Chairman/Secretary.
2. SDO/Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL Sub Division, Gharachon, Distt. Sangrur.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Vinay Jindal, Advocate.
For opposite parties : Shri Nachattar Singh, Advocate.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Jasvir 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 the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by taking DS electricity connection bearing account number S44BL470311L at his residence and has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the OPs. It is further averred that the meter had been installed out of the premises of the complainant in a box.
2. The complainant is aggrieved on receiving a bill dated 27.1.2017 demanding an amount of Rs.26,350/-. The complainant has further averred that he never used the electricity to such an extent nor any prior notice to the complainant has been issued before raising such an illegal demand. It is further averred that the complainant is a poor person and his family is suffering great mental tension and harassment. 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.26,350/- raised in bill dated 27.1.2017 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
3. In reply of the complaint, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs under electricity connection in question. The case of the OPs is that the OP number 2 issued bill amounting to Rs.26,350/- on 30.11.2016 for the consumption of 3931 units and the bill was payable upto 13.12.2016 and after receipt of the bill, the complainant approached the OP number 2 on 19.12.2016 and challenged the accuracy of the meter and submitted the application and deposited Rs.120/- on 19.12.2016. Thereafter OP number 2 issued MCO dated 21.12.2016 and the meter was removed and the reading at that time was 8148 units and the meter was sent to the ME laboratory through challan number 22 dated 16.2.2017 and the same was found to be OK. After receiving the result of ME laboratory, the previous demand of the bill for 11/2016 was included in the bill dated 27.1.2017. The connection of the complainant was disconnected vide PDCO number 57/50322 dated 31.3.2017 on account of defaulting amount of Rs.26,353/-. Thereafter after deposit of the amount of Rs.120/- as RCO fee, the connection was restored on 18.4.2017. The other averments in the complaint have been denied in toto by the Ops and any deficiency in service has been denied.
4. 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-13 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.
5. 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.
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining the electricity connection in question for domestic purposes. In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 27.1.2017 for Rs.26,350/-. We have very carefully perused the bill in question and its bare perusal shows that the amount of Rs.26,350/- is on account of previous balance of consumption charges. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not produce the previous bills on record. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has produced on record the bills dated 26.5.2017, bill dated 21.9.2014 Ex.C-7, bill dated 26.7.2016 Ex.C-8 and bill dated 27.11.2014 Ex.C-9, which have no relevancy at all with the case in hand. We have also perused the copy of bill ledger Ex.OP-1 and its perusal reveals that there was outstanding amount of Rs.26,353/- against the complainant in the bill dated 30.11.2016, but the complainant has not produced the copy of bill dated 30.11.2016 on record nor has challenged the said bill before this Forum, more so when the complainant has challenged the next bill dated 27.1.2017, wherein the previous amount has been carried out. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he withheld the bill dated 30.11.2016. Under the circumstances, we are unable to pass any order against the Ops more so when the complainant has miserably failed to prove on record about the amount so challenged before this Forum by way of the present complaint. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record. However, we feel that the complainant should be given an opportunity to challenge the previous bill dated 30.11.2016, if he so desired.
7. In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to challenge the bill dated 30.11.2016, if he so desired. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
July 4, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
