Punjab

Moga

CC/16/24

Gurtej Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                                                                                                               CC No. 24 of 2016

                                                                                                                              Instituted on : 11.01.2016

                                                                                                                             Decided on: 12.04.2016

 

Gurtej Singh aged about 38 years son of Saudagar Singh resident of Village Daudhar, District Moga.

                                                                                                                                               ……… Complainant

 

                                 Versus

 

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

 

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

 

3.S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Ajitwal, District Moga.

 

                                                                                                                                              ……….. Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint u/S 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Coram : Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

              Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh. Gurtej Singh, Complainant in person.

              Sh. S.K. Dhir, Adv.Cl. for the opposite parties.

 

ORDER :

 

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

 

1.                 Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Sections 12 and  14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) for quashing  the  demand of Rs. 9,639/- made in the bill, which is altogether  illegal, unwarranted, unjust, void, against the fundamental principal of law and liable to be set aside and restraining the opposite parties from recovering the said amount and disconnecting the electric connection in dispute forcibly, illegally, unjustly and in violation of terms and conditions of OP-Corporation and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental tension, unnecessary harassment and damages or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit be also granted.

2.                 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. is a corporate body. It can sue or be sued through its Secretary.  So, the service of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. be got effected through its Secretary. The OP No. 2 and OP No.3 are officials concerned for supplying and energizing the electricity in village Daudhar, District Moga and its surrounding areas. The complainant is consumer of the said electric connection and paying the electricity charges regularly and nothing is due. The said connection is installed in the house of the complainant. The complainant has been using the said connection for domestic use and there are 3/4 bulbs in the said house. The electric consumption was never more than Rs. 1000/- per bill. The opposite party issued the bill in dispute for a sum of Rs. 9639/- payable upto 11.1.2016.  Prior to the said bill, the OP issued a bill for the month of 11/2015 for Rs. 10,220/-. The complainant was forced to deposit Rs. 1900/- and he deposited the said amount to avoid disconnection. As a matter of fact, the employees of the Corporation have misused the power. There is house of one neighbourer and employees of the corporation have used  the wires coming to the house of the complainant and said neighbourer and this fact came to the notice of the employees of corporation only a few days ago and they admitted this fact that the bill is excessive due to their fault. The electricity consumed by the neighbourer has been added in the bill of the complainant.  The complainant is not liable to pay such huge amount as he  never used the electricity to this extent. The opposite parties are bent upon and threatening to recover the amount of Rs. 9639/- forcibly, illegally, unjustly and by taking law into their own hands. The opposite parties were asked many a time to admit the rightful claim of the complainant, but they finally refused to do so.  Hence, this complaint.  

3.                 Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written reply by taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-Corporation and that no cause of action arose to the complainant against the OP-Corporation. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. However, it is admitted that complainant is consumer qua the electric connection in dispute and the  OP issued the bill of Rs. 9639/-. Actual fact is that one Jagjit Singh was consumer of electric connection No. DF-24/2219 and he moved an application to the OP that his bill is excessive  and the same may be got checked. The concerned SDO marked the application to the concerned JE. JE checked the said meter and he found that the reading of meter of Gurtej Singh used to be recorded in the account of Jagjit Singh and the reading of meter of Jagjit Singh was recorded in the account of Gurtej Singh. Thus, as per the report of the JE, both the accounts were overhauled and an amount of Rs. 8269 was claimed from the complainant on account of consumption charges. Due Notice No.1293 dated 8.10.2015 was issued to the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs. 8269/- on account of consumption charges. Complainant did not pay the said amount. Thereafter, the said amount was added in the bill in dispute. The amount claimed by the OP-Corporation is legal one.  Other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

4.                 In order to prove his  case, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence.

5.                In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Jhalman Dass, SDO - Ex. OP1 to 3/1 and copies of documents Ex. OP1 to 3/2 to Ex. OP1 to 3/4 and closed the evidence.

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

7.                The learned Counsel for complainant argued that complainant has a domestic electric connection bearing no. FSIDF242172X installed in his residence issued by OPs and he is the consumer of OPs. He is regularly paying all the electricity bills to OPs and nothing is due as electricity charges. There are only three or four bulbs in his house and consumption of his house is never more than Rs.1000/-. Complainant received a bill dt.27.12.2015 issued by OPs for Rs. 9,639/- payable up to 11.01.2016, which is altogether wrong. The demand of this amount raised by Ops as sundry charges is illegal and is against the instructions of OPs. It is contended that prior to this bill, Ops issued bill for November 2015 for Rs.10,220/- and complainant was forced to deposit Rs.1900/-to avoid disconnection. It is further contended that employees of Ops have misused their powers as there is a house of one employee of Ops adjacent to the house of complainant, who used the power supply from the wires coming from the house of complainant and charges for the power consumed by said employee of Power Corporation have been added in the bill of complainant, to which he is not liable at all. As complainant has never used the electricity to this extent, therefore, he is not liable to pay such huge amount. Complainant requested Ops many times to withdraw this illegal demand of sundry charges, but instead of hearing his requests, they refused to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and threatened to disconnect the connection of complainant, if he does not pay the bill in question in time. The OPs have no right to demand this amount from complainant as sundry charges without giving any detail and prior notice. Copy of bill dt. 27.12.2015 is Ex C-2. All these acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and due to these acts of OPs, complainant has faced great mental tension, agony and harassment. He has prayed that OPs may be directed to withdraw the demand of this amount as sundry charges and also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

8.                To controvert the arguments of complainant, learned counsel for OPs argued that complaint in hand is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and no cause of action arises against OPs. However, they admitted that the complainant has a domestic electric connection running in his house which is issued by OPs and it is also asserted that they have rightly issued the bill dt. 27.12.2015 to complainant demanding a sum of Rs.9,639/-as sundry charges in this bill. It is averred that one Jagjit Singh moved an application before Ops for checking his meter on the ground that he was receiving excessive bill. After this, his meter was checked and it was found that reading of meter of Gurtej Singh/complainant was used to be recorded in the account of Jagjit Singh reading of meter of Jagjit Singh was recorded in the account of Gurtej Singh and vice versa and as per report of J.E, both the accounts were overhauled and an amount of Rs.8,269/-was claimed from the complainant on account of consumption charges, which was consumed by complainant. Due notice no. 1293 dt 8.10.2015 was issued to complainant to deposit the said amount. The copy of notice is Ex OP-1 to 3/4 but he did not pay this amount to OPs despite notice. So, the OPs charged this amount in the bill of complainant as sundry charges. The demand of OPs is legal and as per rules of Ops and they charged this amount correctly. Therefore, the question of withdrawing the said bill does not arise at all and OPs have every right to recover this amount from complainant. The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complainant against the OPs. The complaint may be dismissed with costs.

9.                We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

10.              The case of the complainant is that he has a domestic electric connection issued by OPs in his house and he is regularly paying all the bill of electricity charges. Complainant received a bill dt 27.12.2015 for Rs.9,639/- payable up to 11.01.2016, which is altogether illegal and wrong. Demand raised by OPs as sundry charges is illegal and is against the instructions of OPs. Prior to this bill, OPs issued bill for November 2015 for Rs.10,220/- and under compelling circumstances, complainant deposited Rs.1900/- to avoid disconnection. It is further contended that employees of OPs have misused their powers as there is a house of one employee of OPs near the house of complainant, who used the power supply from the wires coming from the house of complainant and charges for the power consumed by said employee of OPs have been added in the bill of complainant, to which he is not liable at all. As complainant has never used the electricity to this extent, therefore he is not liable to pay such huge amount. Complainant made many requests to OPs to withdraw this illegal demand of sundry charges, but instead of paying any heed to his requests, they refused to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and threatened to disconnect the connection of complainant, if he fails to pay in time. In reply, Ops averred that one Jagjit Singh moved an application before OPs for checking his meter on the ground that he was receiving excessive bill. Thereafter, his meter was checked and it was found that reading of meter of Gurtej Singh/complainant was used to be recorded in the account of Jagjit Singh reading of meter of Jagjit Singh was recorded in the account of Gurtej Singh and as per report of J.E, both the accounts were overhauled and an amount of Rs.8,269/-was claimed from the complainant on account of consumption charges. Notice no. 1293 dt 8.10.2015 was issued to complainant to deposit the said amount, which he failed to pay. So, they have rightly claimed this amount from complainant as sundry charges as per rules and regulations of OPs. In support of their version, they relied upon the documents Ex OP-1 to 3/2 to 4. Ex OP-1-3/2 is application dt. 3.09.2015 submitted by one Jagjit Singh to OPs for adjustment of his bill, on which the JE conducted checking in the month of September-October 2015 and his Checking Report is Ex OP-1 to 3/3. In his report, JE stated that in the month of September 2014, electricity supplied from the meter of Jagjit Singh was consumed by complainant. So, he deducted 550 units from the account of Jagjit Singh and adjusted 500 units consumed in the account of complainant and made demand of these electrical units from complainant vide notice Ex OP-1 to 3/ 4. In his report or notice, the OPs failed to explain how they came to conclusion that electric supply of 550 units from the account of Jagjit Singh is consumed by complainant. They did not give any detail of meter reading of the account of Jagjit Singh or complainant in his report and to the very surprise how they ascertained this fact in the month of September-October 2015 that supply from the meter of Jagjit Singh was consumed by complainant in the month of September 2014 i.e after one year and how they calculated that how much electricity was consumed by the complainant from the account of Jagjit Singh.

11.              In these circumstances, we are of considered opinion that OPs have failed to prove their version and wrongly and illegally charged the amount in dispute from the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. The complainant has succeeded in proving his case. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are ordered to withdraw the demand of Rs 8,576/- which is demanded by them as sundry charges from the complainant in bill dated 27.12.2015. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 12.04.2016

                                                (Bhupinder Kaur)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                       Member                                 President