DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.    588

                                                Instituted on:      02.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       27.04.2018

Ram Lal son of Joginder Singh, resident of Home Guard Office, Sangrur, now residing at Chandigarh.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     Asstt. Executive Engineer, PSPCL, City Sub Division, Sangrur, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant    :       Shri Vikram Manchanda, Adv.

For opposite parties    :       Ms.Rajni Gandhi, Advocate.

Quorum:    Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

1.             Shri Ram Lal,  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 30071253 from the Ops and has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the OPs. Further case of the complainant is that he is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 14.9.2017 for Rs.40,934/- for the period from 15.7.2017 to 14.9.2017 on the basis of average consumption of 2758 units, whereas the complainant never used the electricity to such an extent.  After receipt of the bill in question, though the complainant approached the OPs, but nothing happened, as such, on the assurance of the OPs the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.19,928/- on 27.9.2017 under protest. Thereafter the complainant approached the Ops a number of times for withdrawal of the said demand, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the said demand of Rs.40,934/- raised vide bill dated 14.09.2017 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and has concealed material facts from this Forum, as such has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On merits,  it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs by obtaining the connection in question. The case of the OPs is that the meter of the complainant was under ‘D’ code, as such the bill was sent to the complainant on average basis. It is stated further that as per the instructions mentioned in Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 2017, if the meter of the consumer is defective/dead, stop burnt or stolen then on the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year be taken, as such, the demand is said to be genuine.  It is further stated that the demand of Rs.40,930/- includes the previous bill dues for the month of July, 2017 to the tune of Rs.19,827/-.  As such, the demand is said to be genuine one and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 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.

4.             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.

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining the electricity connection in question. It is further admitted that the bill dated 14.9.2017 for Rs.40,934/-, Ex.OP-5 was issued by the OPs to the complainant.  But, the case of the OPs is that this bill dated 14.9.2017 includes previous bill of July, 2017 to the tune of Rs.19,827/-, which fact the complainant has not mentioned anywhere in the complaint or in the affidavit.  Further perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has not produced any such receipt showing the payment of previous bill for the month of July, 2017.  Ex.C-3 is the copy of receipt dated 27.09.2017 for Rs.19,928/- which the complainant has alleged being the part payment of the bill dated 14.9.2017, but in fact this demand/amount relates to the previous bill for the month of July, 2017. Since the complainant himself was in the arrears and the bill dated 14.9.2017 includes the arrears of the current financial year, as such, we feel that the complainant has concealed this material information from this Forum.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not produce the receipt of the payment for the month of July, 2017 on record file. It is further worth mentioning here that a person who does not come to the Forum with clean hands is not entitled to get any relief.  In the circumstances of the case, we find no case made out in favour of the complainant.

6.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, 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.

                        April 27, 2018.

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                           Presiding  Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member