Punjab

Sangrur

CC/95/2018

Shehzad - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Mohd. Izhar

03 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 95                                                                                           

                                         Instituted on:  23.02.2018                                          

                                          

                                       Decided on:    03.08.2018

 

Shehzad son of Sarvar Ali resident of Mohalla Tehlian Wala, Quila Rehmatgarh, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.          

                                                …. Complainant   

                                Versus

 

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

2.       SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited City Sub Division 1 Malerkotla District Sangrur.                                                                     ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :         Shri Mohd. Izhar, Advocate                        

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES              :   Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate                         

 

 

Quorum

                   

                            

Sarita Garg,   PresidingMember

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

ORDER:  

 

 

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

1.             Shehzad, 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 3004574377. The  complainant belongs to BC category and as such he takes benefits of the scheme of weaker section  in which 200 units are free  for SC/BC  category. He is aggrieved by the demand of Rs.19050/- raised vide bill dated 12.08.2017  for 2877 units. The complainant raised  issue of defective meter  then OPs replaced the meter and sent to the M.E. laboratory Sangrur. The complainant was never intimated to come present in the M.E. Lab Sangrur and he also never intimated regarding report of M.E. laboratory. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to withdraw the bill dated 12.08.2017 of Rs.19050/-  and bill dated 11.10.2017  of Rs.26660/- ,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.30,000/-  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 submitted that the complainant deposited the meter challenge fee  of Rs.120/-  vide receipt dated 31.08.2017.  On the request of  the  complainant the OPs immediately issued the M.C.O. after deposited the meter challenge fee and old meter was packed  with rules of PSPCL and new meter  was installed at the spot in the premises of complainant and  as per rules the meter was sent to the M.E. laboratory for checking.  The report of M.E. laboratory is still awaited so the question of calling the complainant  in the M.E. laboratory does not arise.  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-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs-1 to Ex.OPs-4 and closed evidence.

 4.               It is an admitted fact that the complainant challenged the defective meter and deposited Rs.120/- on 31.08.2017 as meter challenge fee. The complainant's grievance is that  he was not called at the time of checking the meter in the M.E. laboratory and as such he demanded to withdraw the bill dated 12.08.2017 for  an amount of Rs.19050/- and  bill dated 11.10.2017 for an amount of Rs.2660/- which includes the arrears of bill dated 12.08.2017.

5.                The Ops have  specifically stated in their written statement that on the request of  the  complainant, the OPs immediately issued the M.C.O. after deposited the meter challenge fee and old meter was packed  with rules of PSPCL and new meter  was installed at the spot in the premises of complainant and  as per rules the meter was sent to the M.E. laboratory for checking through store challan number 237 dated 23.01.2018 and no fault was found  in the M.E. laboratory Sangrur so the billed amount is question is  liable to be recovered  from the complainant  but the complainant did not  deposit said bill which are related to the actual consumption of electricity charges only. Hence, the bill is based upon the actual consumption charges and the complainant is legally bound to pay the same.

6.             Moreover, during the arguments, learned counsel for the Ops has produced a copy of application dated 21.08.2017  filed by the complainant to the S.D.O. City -1 PSPCL Malerkotla wherein  he has undertaken that whatever report /  results sent by the M.E. laboratory would be binding on him. As such, the contention of the complainant regarding non-calling him in the M.E.laboratory  for checking of his meter is not tenable.

7.             In view of the facts stated above, we dismiss the present complaint of the complainant 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

                August 3, 2018

 

 

 

                              ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)             (  Sarita Garg)                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Member                               Presiding Member