DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.94 of 19.3.2018

                                      Decided on:   2.2.2021

Fatehjit Ahuja son of Sh.Jagdish Ahuja resident of village Ghagar Sarai, P.O. Shambhu Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Assistant Engineer (SDO) Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Suburban Sub Division, Rajpura District Patiala.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.,The Mall, Patiala through Managing Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.M.L.Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite parties exparte.                                    

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Fatehjit Ahuja (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that in the month of November,2016 the complainant applied for a domestic electricity connection with the load of 2KW for his house and the same was released on 27.12.2016  with a/c No.3004574219.
3. It is averred that on 25.12.2016, father of the complainant suffered  severe heart attack and the complainant took him to PGI, Chandigarh where he remained under treatment till 7.1.2017. It is averred that complainant was surprised on receipt of electricity bill dated 24.2.2017 for the period from 27.12.2016 to 24.2.2017 for Rs.52570/- for the consumption of  6789 units which is very huge. It is averred that in all the bills issued by the OPs, the consumption of units are 621, 594, 617 and 233.The complainant approached the OPs and requested for the correction of the bill. He also challenged the correctness of meter on 7.9.2017 but of no avail. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to correct the bill dated 24.2.2017 for the period from 27.12.2016 to 24.2.2017; to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.10,000/-as costs of litigation.
4. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. It is admitted that meter was installed on 27.12.2016 with zero reading. It is admitted that the complainant challenged the correctness of the meter which was declared OK as per the report of M.E.Lab.and the complainant is liable to pay the amount of the bill. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In evidence the ld counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
6. After filing written reply the OPs neither appeared nor lead any evidence and were accordingly proceeded against exparte on 8.2.2019.
7. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant applied for electric connection for his house in the month of November, 2016. The ld. counsel further argued that on 25.12.2016 the father of the complainant suffered severe heart problem and he took him to PGI Chandigarh where he remained admitted for the period from 27.12.2016 to 7.1.2017.It  is further averred that the OPs installed the electric meter on 27.12.2016.The complainant was surprised  on receipt of bill of Rs.52570/- for the period from 27.12.2016 to 24.2.2017 with electricity consumption of 6789 units. The complainant challenged the correctness  of the disputed bill but no action has been taken. In all the bills issued to the complainant, the consumption  of units has been shown as 621, 584, 617 and 233. Hence the complaint be allowed.
8.  In evidence  complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint. Ex.C1 is the impugned bill dated 24.2.2017 in which the total payable amount was shown as 52570/-.Another bill Ex.C2  is for the consumption of 301 units, Exs.C3 and C4 are the receipts. The complainant also tagged the record of PGI,Chandigarh dated 27.12.2016 of his father .
9. As per the record, the bill of Rs.52570/- was sent and this bill has been challenged. The perusal of the file shows that on 20.3.2018 the complainant has deposited 30% amount of  the impugned bill.
10. The OPs were proceeded against exparte as after appearing and filing written reply they failed to come present and lead any evidence
11. From the record it is clear that the complainant has never consumed so much huge units.
12. So due to our aforesaid discussion the complaint stands partly allowed. As the meter was installed on 27.12.2016 so the OPs are directed to correct the impugned bill after taking the consumption  consumed by the complainant in further three years.No order as to costs.          

DATED:2.2.2021         

                                  Y.S.Matta                            Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President