Punjab

Moga

CC/15/50

Ajay Kumar Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Tarang Chopra

28 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                      C.C. No. 50 of 2015

                                                                Instituted On: 03.08.2015

                                                  Decided On: 28.10.2015

 

Ajay Kumar Verma son of Shri Ashwani Kumar Verma, resident of Main Bazar, Moga, Opposite Bij Ben Hotel, Moga.

Complainant 

Versus

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Senior Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Suburban Sub Division, Moga.

3. S.D.O, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Suburban Sub Division, G.T.Road, Moga.  

         

Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                   Smt.Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Present:      Sh.Tarang Chopra, Advocate Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Raj.K.Goyal, Advocate Counsel for opposite parties.  

 

ORDER

(Vinod Bala, Member)

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala and others (herein-after referred to as opposite parties)- directing them not to recover the amount of 46,100/- and disconnecting the electric connection no.F25MB050335M of the complainant and further prayed that the illegal demand of Rs.46,100/- may kindly be quashed and complainant may be awarded any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is the holder of an electric connection bearing no.F25MB050335M and he was paying the regular consumption charges. The opposite party no.3 had issued a bill dated 17.03.2015 for the month of 30.03.2015 to 01.04.2015 to the complainant, in which a sum of Rs.45,300/- has been added unnecessarily. The complainant approached the office of opposite parties and made grievances before them regarding the same, but the complainant was told to deposit Rs.1200/- as actual consumption charges and the dispute regarding the said remaining amount will be considered lateron. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued a bill dated 11.06.2015 for the period 18.03.2015 to 11.06.2015, in which amount of Rs.46,100/- have been added being arrear of the previous year. The abovesiad amount demanded by the opposite parties is illegal, unjust, unwarranted, void and liable to be set aside on the grounds that no any memo or proper notice was ever issued to the complainant, the complainant has been condemned unheard, no opportunity has been granted to the complainant, mandatory provision of PSPCL has been violated, the complainant never used the electricity to this extent. The complainant had also served a legal notice dated 10.07.2015, through his counsel, but to no effect. Due to deficient services rendered by the opposite parties, the complainant has to suffer unnecessarily harassment. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel Sh.Raj.K.Goyal, Advocate, but did not file written statement and suffered a statement that he is unable to file written reply and relevant documents, as inspite of his repeated requests nobody has come forward from the office of opposite party no.3 to get prepared the written reply. As such, case was ordered to be listed for evidence of complainant.

4.                In his evidence, the complainant Ajay Kumar Verma appeared in witness box as his own witness and filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of his allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record photocopies of the documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through record placed on file.

6.                Learned counsel for opposite parties Sh.Raj.K.Goyal, Advocate has vehemently contended that bill for an amount of Rs.45,300/- has been duly issued on the basis of the actual consumption. No doubt the opposite parties have not filed any written reply, yet it is a case proved through evidence adduced by the complainant himself that the amount in dispute was arrear of electricity bill, which was issued to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the meter reader on spot visit. The complaint in dispute is without any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed accordingly.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant Sh.Tarang Chopra, Advocate has vehemently contended that the evidence adduced by the complainant, in support of his case, has gone un-rebutted on record. Even though the opposite parties were represented by the counsel, yet they have failed to file written reply to deny the allegations made in the complaint. In other words, the opposite parties have impliedly admitted the case of the complainant as set up in the complaint. There is nothing on record to contend that an amount of Rs.46,100/- was on the basis of actual consumption. This argument advanced by counsel for the opposite parties is without any cogent evidence on record. Since the evidence on record clearly shows that an amount of Rs.45,300/- has been wrongly incorporated in the copy of the bill Ex.C2, therefore the complaint is liable to be allowed and illegal demand of Rs.46,100/- raised vide bill copy whereof is Ex.C3 is liable to be quashed. The opposite parties may also be restrained from recovering the said amount or disconnecting the electric connection standing in the name of the complainant.

8.                We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.

9.                There is no denying the fact that the opposite parties have raised a demand of Rs.45,310/- vide bill copy whereof is Ex.C2, which was lateron enhanced to Rs.46,100/- vide bill copy whereof is Ex.C3 on record. The contention of learned counsel for opposite parties that the demand of Rs.45,310/- has been raised on the basis of the actual consumption is not borne out from the evidence on record. Rather, the opposite parties impliedly admitted the case of the complainant, when they did not opt to file written reply to the complaint, despite getting a number of dates for the purpose. Since the opposite parties were custodians of all record, therefore, they were duty bound to furnish the relevant record to contradict the allegations made in the complaint. But however, for the reason best known to the opposite parties they did not opt to file any written reply nor produced any record maintained by them. As such, the demand of Rs.46,100/- as per bill dated 11.06.2015, copy whereof is Ex.C3 is illegal and is liable to be quashed. The opposite parties cannot recover the above stated amount nor they were authorized to disconnect the electric connection standing in the name of the complainant forcibly and illegally on the basis of the illegal demand.

10.              Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds and the demand raised vide bill copy whereof is Ex.C3 is quashed. Opposite parties are also restrained from making the recovery or disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant, illegally or forcibly in violation of the terms and conditions of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on the basis of the said illegal demand and the instant complaint stands allowed accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

                   (Bhupinder Kaur)          (Vinod Bala)        (S.S. Panesar)

                    Member                         Member                   President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:28.10.2015.