Punjab

Sangrur

CC/178/2018

Jodh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Rohit Jain

31 Oct 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR      

                                                                   Complaint no. 178                                                                                         

                                                                   Instituted on:  10.04.2018                                                                                    

                                                                   Decided on:    31.10.2018

 

Jodh Singh aged about 63 years son of Labh Singh resident of Village Ahen Kheri (Ahno), Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.            

                                                …. Complainant   

                                Versus

 

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited The Mall Patiala through its Chairman/ Managing Director.

2.       AEE,SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Urban Satta Bazar Malerkotla, District Sangrur.                                                                                                                        ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :         Shri Rohit Jain,   Advocate                        

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES              :   Shri Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate                          

Quorum              

                            

Inderjeet Kaur,   PresidingMember

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

ORDER:  

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

1.             Jodh Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he is a consumer of the OPs having  an electric connection bearing account number L36AH620012M which is in the name of his father. The complainant is using the above said connection being beneficiary and owner in possession of the electric connection. The complainant was surprised to receive a bill dated 08.01.2018 for Rs.16789/- out of which Rs.8972/-  as demanded on account of previous round amount.  The complainant approached the OPs but the OP no.2 refused to withdraw the same. The condition of the meter is "O" in the bill which means the meter is correct one. The said meter was neither checked by any laboratory nor complainant ever authorized any person  to sign any document on his behalf. The  meter of the complainant was neither got checked  from any M.E. laboratory  nor any notice was received by the complainant regarding checking. The complainant also requested the OP no.2 to issue a new bill on actual consumption but the OP no.2 refused to do so. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.8000/- with OPs under threat. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to withdraw the illegal bill dated 08.01.2018 and to restrain the Ops to recover  the amount of Rs.16789/- demanded through bill dated 8.1.2018,

ii)             OPs be directed to issue a new bill on the actual consumption as per previous bills, 

iii)            OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.60,000/- on account mental agony and harassment,

iv)            OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is denied that  information as to death of father of the complainant has been given to the OPs.  In the bill dated 08.01.2018 an amount of Rs.8955/- was of sundry charges.  In the bill of November 2015 and Janauary 2016, the meter of the complaint  was shown as "F" code due to which average reading was prepared which was 212 units in the bill of November 2015 and 235 units in bill of Janaury 2016.  The Revenue Audit Party inspected that the actual consumption was of 1000 units in bill of November 2015and 385units in January 2016 which showed Rs.8562 as outstanding bill.  It is denied that the complainant approached  the Ops to give refund rather the OPs have already been intimated .  It is correct that the complainant has paid Rs.8000/- but no question of  threat arose.

3.                The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs- 1 to Ex.OPs-7  and closed evidence.

4.             In view of the facts stated above, the complaint is partly allowed to the extent of  disallowing the recovery of Rs.8972/- out of the electricity bill of Rs.16789/- dated 8.1.2018 raised by the OPs. Further the OPs would over haul the above said bill accordingly and adjust any amount, if already paid. An amount of Rs.8972/- raised by the audit party of the PSPCL vide audit  note number 4 dated 8.4.2017 and intimated to the complainant on 26.12.2017 ( after the lapse of about eight and half months) is ordered to be recovered from the then AEE/RA of the Sub- Urban SubDivision Malerkotla as the responsibility of both the officer/ official to give the notice to the complainant to recover the audit amount is joint and several.

5.             This order of ours shall be complied with within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Announced

                October 31, 2018

 

 

 

                              ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)             (  Inderjeet Kaur)                                                                                                                                                                        

                                     Member                               Presiding Member