BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.121 of 2019
Date of Instt. 18.04.2019 Date of Decision: 09.03.2021
Sh. Jit Ram Sharma S/o Sh. Megh Nath Sharma, R/o 209, GTB Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chief Engineer, Shakti Sadan, Jalandhar.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Executive Engineer, Model Town Sub Division, Boota Pind, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OPs No.1 to 3 exparte.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is the actual consumer of the electric connection No.J72GT463241Y, Contract No.3002971149, installed at 209, G. T. B. Nagar, Jalandhar. He received a bill dated 03.10.2018 in respect of aforesaid electric connection for consuming of 15489 units of electricity for Rs.40,080/- from the OP, which was deposited by the complainant with the OP, copy of the bill is Ex.C-1. That complainant again received a bill dated 01.01.2019 in respect of the aforesaid electric connection for a sum of Rs.9190/-. On the receipt of the said bill complainant approached the OP No.3 for making enquiry of the said bill and on enquiry from the dealing clerk, it transpired that instead of Rs.9190/- to be payable to the PSPCL, a sum of Rs.6000/- was lying credited to the account of the complainant and accordingly, complainant was advised not to make payment of the said amount of Rs.9190/-, copy of the bill is Ex.C-2. That the complainant received bill dated 31.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.15,390/- for the consumption of units of 1012 in respect of the aforesaid electric connection and on the receipt of the said bill, complainant again approached OP No.3 alongwith the bill and met the dealing clerk in connection with the said bill. The dealing clerk after checking the ledger, corrected the bill to Rs.5290/- instead of Rs.15,390/-, copy of the said bill is Ex.C-3. That each and every time complainant is receiving wrong bill from the OP and each and every occasion complainant is getting these bills corrected from OP No.3. Complainant being a senior citizen aged about 75 years is being harassed unnecessarily without any fault of complainant. The complainant served legal notice dated 09.02.2019 upon the OPs, but all in vain and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed not to issue wrong bills to the complainant in future and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service all the OPs miserably failed to appear and ultimately, all the OPs were proceeded against exparte.
3. In order to prove his respective version, the counsel for the complainant produced on the file his respective evidence.
4. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.
5. It is established on the file that the allegations made in the complaint has been already conveyed to the OP by giving a legal notice dated 09.02.2019 through registered post and copy of the postal receipts are Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7, it is presume that the legal notice was served to the OPs, but despite becoming aware about his mistake by sending wrong electricity bills to the complainant, all the OPs did not bother and thereafter, the complainant filed the instant complaint and notice of this complaint was also served upon all the OPs, but despite service again OPs did not bother to appear in the Commission and they were proceeded against exparte and ultimately, the allegations of the complainant are remained un-rebutted and un-challenged because there is no rebuttal evidence came on the file qua the allegations of complainant.
6. In order to give strength to the allegations as made in the complaint, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant received a bill dated 01.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.9190/- and thereafter the complainant approached OP No.3 for making enquiry of the said bill and on enquiry the dealing clerk, it transpired that instead of Rs.9190/- to be payable to the PSPCL, a sum of Rs.6000/- was lying credited to the account of the complainant and accordingly, complainant was advised not to make payment of the said amount of Rs.9190/-, this fact is evident from bill Ex.C-2 and then again the complainant received another bill dated 31.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.15,390/- and then again the complainant approached OP No.3 and after checking the ledger by dealing clerk, correct the bill to Rs.5290 instead of Rs.15,390/-, which is evident from bill Ex.C-3. No doubt, the complainant has brought on the file two bills Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, from these bills one thing is clear that each and every time complainant received wrong bill from the OP and corrected these bills from OP No.3, which shows that the OP No.3 is negligent and deficient in service, but in order to controvert the allegation of the complainant that there is repeatedly mistake has been occurred, the OP has not appeared in the witness box. So, in the absence of any evidence on the part of the OPs, we have no option except to accept the un-rebutted evidence of the complainant, so complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed along with compensation and litigation expenses.
7. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is exparte partly accepted and OPs are directed not to issue wrong bills to the complainant in future and further, OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.2000/- for causing mental tension and harassment and further, OPs are directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.1000/-. All the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply with the above mentioned order of this Commission. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
9th Day of March 2021
(Kuljit Singh)
President
(Jyotsna)
Member
