BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.145 of 2016

Date of Instt. 29.03.2016

Date of Decision: 28.03.2017

Rajiv Sharma aged about 43 years S/o Sh. Jagdish Lal S/o Sh.Dwarka Dass R/o H.No.NE-7, Quilla Mohalla, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. East Commercial Sub Division, Pathankot Chowk, Jalandhar, Through its SDO.

2. Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. The Mall, Patiala, Through its Chairman.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Vinod Attri, Adv Counsel for complainant.

Sh. Balwinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that he earlier residing in H.No.NE-7, Quilla Mohalla, Jalandhar but in the month of August, 2012, he shifted his residence from NE-7, Quilla Mohalla, Jalandhar to NE-17, Quilla Mohalla, Jalandhar since then he is residing in NE-17, Quilla Mohalla, Jalandhar. The house No.NE-7, is lying closed since August, 2012. The electric connection meter bearing No.J61CM450259M is installed in the H.No.NE-7 in the name of Dwarka Dass grand father of the complainant and complainant is regularly making the payment of electricity consumption charges of the said house. Sh. Dwarka Dass has died since long and the complainant is grand son of Sh. Dwarka Dass and is using the said electricity connection.

2. That electric connection No.J61CM450248A is installed in H.No.17 in the name of Hukum Chand the previous owner.

3. After August, 2012 the consumption of electricity in H.No.17 increased due to residence of the complainant as he shifted in the said house No.NE17. Earlier to that the bill of the House No.17 was raised by OPs is only Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- and thereafter August, 2012 the bill of House No.17 has been increased to more than Rs.5000/-. The electricity charges and bill of H.No.7 due to non use of electric connection is Rs.300/- to Rs.400/-. The complainant has paid the electricity charges upto March, 2015 but in the month of May, 2015, he shocked to receive the bill of Rs.59170/- of the House No.7. The complainant immediately approached the opposite parties and from the information provided by the opposite parties, the complainant came to know that the opposite parties raised the bill as per the objection raised by audit department, whereas the complainant has not used the said connection for any other purpose and reason. The residence of the complainant has already been shifted from NE-7 to NE-17. The complainant moved an application dated 17.09.2015 before the opposite parties with regard to excess bill raised by the opposite parties illegally but after receiving the application of the complainant, the OPs directed to the complainant to pay 20% of the total amount i.e. Rs.10,966/-. Thereafter the matter was referred to Dispute Settlement Committee but the said committee rejected the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 01.12.2015 bearing No.2721 and directed to deposit the balance amount of the bill and as such request of the complainant has not been considered by the OPs and as such there is tentamounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which gave necessity to file the instant complaint with the prayer that the complaint may kindly be accepted and OPs may kindly be directed to set aside the demand raised by them and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation or harassment and also pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties and accordingly opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that at the very outset, the opposite parties denies each and every averments and allegations made in the complaint, save and extent to what is specifically admitted hereinafter. The complainant has suppressed material facts from this Forum and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further submitted that the complainant is estopped by his own act, conduct, admission and omissions from filing the present complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost and further submitted that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against opposite parties and even the complaint is incomplete and does not mention the correct and proper facts and history of the case. Hence the complaint is liable to the dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the electricity connection bearing No.J61CM450259M is installed in the name of Dwarka Dass at House No.NE-7, Quilla Mohalla, Jalandhar but remaining allegations made in the complaint are categorically denied and further submitted that the real facts are that electric meter bearing No.J61CM450259 became defected and the same was replaced vide MCO No.153/101901 dated 11.04.2014 and the new meter was installed in the presence of the complainant. The account of the said meter was overhauled for the period 09/2012 to 5/2014 by the Department of Audit on the basis of previous year recorded consumption and demand a sum of Rs.54,828/- vide letter dated 18.12.2014 and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and is liable to be dismissed.

5. In order to prove his claim, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6 and closed the evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. OP-A alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also scanned the file very minutely.

8. The case of the complainant as well as plea taken by the OPs has been sympathetically considered and find that the electricity connection bearing No.J61CM450259M is installed in the House No.NE-7 in the name of Dwarka Dass and same is running condition but the plea taken by the complainant is that since August, 2012 he has been shifted from NE-7 to NE-17, Quilla Mohalla, Jalandhar and as such he is consuming the electricity in the new house i.e. NE-17 and there is no consumption in the old house NE-7 and average bill of the House No.7 was come from Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- but surprisingly the complainant received a bill in the month of March 2015 for electricity meter installed in the House No.NE-7, to the tune of Rs.59,170/- and he immediately approached to the OPs but no justice was given to the complainant by the OPs or Dispute Settlement Committee and as such the instant complaint was filed.

9. The OPs has taken simple plea that the objection was raised by Audit Party and accordingly the account of the meter in dispute was overhauled for the period 9/2012 to 5/2014 and consumption charges was imposed to the complainant on the basis of previous year recorded consumption and accordingly raised a disputed amount of Rs.54,828/- which is apparently legal and right.

10. After considering the respective plea taken by both the parties, we find that when the complainant himself took a plea that he shifted from his old house NE-7 to new house NE-17, Quilla Mohalla, Jalandhar and these factum has not been controverted or rectify by the OPs by giving any cogent and convenience evidence that the complainant or any other relative/friend of the complainant is still residing in the House No.NE-7, Quilla Mohalla, Jalandhar, if none is residing in old House NE-7 then the average bill for the previous month imposing to the complainant is not justify for the reason if the complainant is not consuming any electricity unit in the old house NE-7 then how and under what circumstances the OPs has overhauled the account of the said meter for the period 9/2012 to 5/2014 and imposed the amount on the basis of previous year recorded consumption whereas the complainant has not consumed any electricity unit during that period and moreover the meter of the complainant was changed, as alleged by the OPs in Para No.3 of the written reply, if the previous meter was removed and new meter was installed and then it is bounded duty of the OPs to get the old meter checked from ME Lab but for the best known reason the OPs has not got checked the old meter from ME Lab. For changing of meter a document also available on the file as Ex.OP1 and demand of Rs.54,828/- was made by OPs from complainant vide letter Ex.OP2 but we find that the demand raised by OPs for depositing of previous balance amount Rs.54,828/- is not justify, the said amount is imposed without any sufficient cause and same is illegal which is not recoverable from the complainant for the reason recorded above.

11. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and demand of previous balance amount of Rs.54,828/- vide letter Ex.OP2 is hereby set aside, the OPs are not entitled to get recover the said amount, however, OPs can recover the other consumption charges from the complainant time to time and further OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- to the complainant and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

28.03.2017 Member President