Punjab

Sangrur

CC/222/2018

Mohd. Sadiq - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Vinay Kumar Jindal

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                             

                                               

                                                                  Complaint no. 222

                                                                   Instituted on:  07.05.2018   

                                                                    Decided on:    08.04.2019

 

1.     Mohd. Sadiq aged 18 years son of Late Sh.   Jamaldeen Singh,
2.     Razia wife of Late Sh. Jamaldeen,
3.     Shahibaj son of Late. Sh Jamaldeen,
4.     Mohd. Shahid son of Late. Shri Jamaldeen,

 

 All resident of #560, Rose Avenue Colony, Malerkotla, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

           

                                                …. Complainants  

                                Versus

 

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

2.       S.D.O/Asstt. Executive Engineer, City-1, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Malerkotla, Tehsil Malerkotla District Sangrur.                                                                   ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            : Shri  Vinay Jindal,   Advocate                        

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES               :   Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate                          

Quorum               

                            

Vinod Kumar Gulati,   PresidingMember

Manisha, Member

 

ORDER:   

 

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

 

1.             Complainants have 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 L32KC410583M which is in the name of his father. The complainants are using the above said connection being beneficiaries and owner in possession of the electric connection. The OPs have already allowed the exemption for consumption electricity units to the complainants  and OPs have already given  concession of 400 units consumption to the complainants in the electricity bill dated 14.10.2017. The complainant was surprised to receive a bill dated 14.04.2018 for Rs.11450/- in which an amount of Rs.9007/-  mentioned in the bill as adjustment. The OPs  have also shown in  the disputed bill dated 14.04.2018, only 200 units of consumption. So, the complainants failed to understand that why the OPs have issued the bill of Rs.11450/- for 200 units only.  The complainant requested the OPs for making correction in the bill, but the OPs flatly refused to accept the request of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to withdraw the disputed bill dated 14.04.2018 amounting to Rs.11450/- on account of consumption of electricity.

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account mental agony and harassment,

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is denied that  the information as to death of father of the complainant has been given to the OPs. The complainants neither intimated to the OPs regarding the death of Jamaldeen nor approached for change of name till today.  The actual facts are that the disputed electric connection bearing account number L32KC410583M is running in the name of Jamaldeen under D.S. category with sanctioned load 0.660 KW.  The connection of the consumer Jamaldeen was checked  by the officials of the PSPCL on 29.11.2017 vide checking report  dated 29.11.2017 in the presence of Mohd. Jameen and during checking the running load was found more than the sanctioned load. At the time of checking, the load was found i.e. 2.580 KW as clearly mentioned on the checking report dated 29.11.2017. Moreover, Mohd. Jameen  after admitting the same being true and correct gave his signature in Punjabi on the said checking report. After checking, as per the rules/regulation of the PSPCL, the concession of 200 units of the consumer was abolished as the consumer was getting the benefits of the 200 units concession under 1KW B.C. category scheme, but the consumer was consuming the electricity more than the sanction load after concealing the same from the department on 29.11.2017 and as per norms of PSPCL, the consumer is not legally entitled for the same. Therefore, the bills were issued to the consumer on the actual consumption of electric charges without giving the concession of 200 units. So, the demand raised by the OPs is legal and valid and is binding upon the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs-1 to Ex.OPs-2 and closed evidence. The Ops submitted the written arguments.

 

4.             It is admitted fact that the disputed electric connection bearing account number L32 KC410583 is running in the name of the Jamaldeen under DS category with the sanctioned load of 0.660KW as per official record of PSPCL and same is still running in the name of Jamaldeen and the complainants are using electricity supply from this connection and are paying electricity bills and availing electricity concession of 400 units bimonthly on this connection. Further, the complainants received bill dated 14.04.2018 for the amount of Rs.11450/- which the complainants have alleged that it is totally illegal and wrong. The OPs in their reply have submitted that the actual fact is that the connection of the consumer Jamaldeen was checked  by the officialS of the PSPCL on 29.11.2017 vide checking report  dated 29.11.2017 in the presence of one Mohd. Jameen and during checking the running load was found more than sanctioned load. At the time of checking, the load was found as 2.580 KW as clearly  mentioned in the checking report dated 29.11.2017. Mohd. Jameen  after admitting the same being true and correct gave his signature in Punjabi along with the mobile number on the said checking report. After checking, as per the rules/regulations of the PSPCL, the connection of 200 units per month of the consumer was abolished as the consumer was getting the benefits of the 200 units concession under 1KW B.C. category scheme, but the consumer was consuming the electricity more than the sanctioned load after concealing the same from the department on 29.11.2017 and as per norms of PSPCL, the consumer is not legally entitled for the same. Therefore, the bills were issued to the consumer on the consumption of electric charge without giving connection of 200 units.

 

5.             In the support of their claim, the OPs have placed on record Ex.OP-2, the checking report of the said connection, wherein it has been mentioned that during the checking, connected load of the complainant was detected to be 2.580 KW against the sanctioned load of 0.660KW.  The checking report has been found to be duly signed by the checking officer and the representative of the consumer with his mobile number. The complainant has not placed on record any document showing that M. Jaseen  who signed as the representative of the complainant is not the member of the family of the complainant. Further, the complainant has not contested the details of the checking report.  The submission of the complainant in his complaint that he approached OPs regarding the mentioning of amount of Rs.9007/- in the head of the adjustment is not at all correct in view of the document submitted by the complainant as Ex.C-2 on which it clearly mentioned that "Concession Amount Charge".

 

6.             In sequel of above discussion, we find that the amount charged in the bill by the OPs is correct and is payable by the complainant and we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As such, the complaint merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.   A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                

                Announced.

                April 8, 2019.

 

 

                                                         (Vinod Kumar Gulati)                        (Manisha)
                                                           Presiding Member                              Member