Punjab

Sangrur

CC/8/2018

Mohd.Salim - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Mohd. Izhar

11 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  8

                                                Instituted on:    04.01.2018

                                                Decided on:       11.06.2018

 

 

Mohd. Salim aged 51 years son of Nizamdin, resident of House No.467, Ward No.6, Prem Nagar, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. City Sub Division, Malerkotla-I, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Mohd. Izhar, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

        Sarita Garg,  Member

               

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Mohd. Salim,  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 obtaining one domestic electricity connection bearing account number L32PN660057P and has been paying the bills regularly. 

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that  the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the electricity bill dated 22.12.2017 for Rs.34,740/- and as such the complainant contacted the SDO to correct the bill saying that the bill be corrected as he remained never defaulter of the OPs.  It is further averred that the OP in the month of December/January, changed the meter of the complainant and installed the new one outside the premises of the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that though he approached the Ops so many times to correct the bill, but of no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the bill dated 22.12.2017 for Rs.34,740/- and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             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 the complainant has dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation and that the present complaint is false and frivolous one.  On merits,  it is stated that the connection in question is in the name of one Mohd. Khlil and not in the name of the complainant and as such it is stated that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is further stated that the meter of the complainant was changed by the Godrej company in routine matter and the same was changed by MCO and the same was effected in the month of March, 2017 and during the period of March, 2017 to September, 2017 the bills were issued to the consumer on average basis under F code.  However, lastly, it is prayed that the demand is quite genuine and legal one. The complaint is said to be dismissed with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 affidavit and copies of documents 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.             At the outset, the case of the complainant is that he is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 22.12.2017 for Rs.34,740/- which is said to be excessive one and has challenged the legality of the bill in question and has sought its withdrawal by the Ops.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the complainant is not a consumer as the connection in question is running in the name of Mohd. Khlil and not in the name of complainant, Mohd. Salim.  The complainant has not rebutted this allegation of the Ops at any point of time as neither the complainant has rebutted this allegation in the affidavit nor has filed any rejoinder to this effect. Even the copies of the bills produced on record show that the connection is running in the name of Mohd. Khlil and the complaint has been filed by Mohd. Salim.  As such, we feel that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops and further his complaint seems not to be maintainable before this Forum.

 

7.             In view of our above discussions and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant being not a consumer. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 11, 2018.

                                                   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                          President

 

 

                                                       (Sarita Garg)

                                                            Member