Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/46/2017

Neeraj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Major Jarnail Singh

30 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   46 of 2017

Date of Institution                      :      29.08.2017 

Date of Decision              :     30.07.2018      

Neeraj Kumar son of Narain Chand Resident of Village Makowal, Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar through attorney Sh.Narain Chand son of Sh.Ami Chand, Resident of Village Makowal Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Mobile No.9417358510.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Balachaur, District S.B.S. Nagar through SDO.
2. XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.
3. Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, District Patiala.

Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

SH.A.P.S. RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant  :         Sh.Narain Chand, Authorized Representative

For OPs                :         Sh.P.K. Dhir, Advocate

ORDER 

PER S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant through his attorney Sh.Narain Chand, wherein it is alleged that a electric meter was installed in the name of complainant having No.PB45/1985M and paid first bill on 23.02.2017.  This connection is having reading of 2264 for 107 days i.e. daily 21.16 while its load is .53 and running only one fan and two lights.  He moved an application on 27.02.2017.  Meter giving excessive readings.  It be rectified.  But nothing was done. Je was asked that there is fault in fittings.  He refitted but problem not solved.  He noted daily readings and observed that meter jumped. One reading of 21.03.2017 was 76 and daily giving 10,20, 30, 40.  He noted the reading daily for one month.  He moved an application dated 23.03.2017 for change of meter as meter was not OK.  Upon which, Balram JE was checked the spot and as per his report reading of 24 hours was 36 Units, 13 Units and 9 Units.  He visited to SDO and deposit Rs.120/- for challenge the meter.  As per report dated 25.07.2017 of JE, the meter was running fast and meter be changed and sealed packed. On 13.05.2017 meter was changed and meter challenge No.BA16/311/875801.  He knows that time that wire of connection not correct due to which the fitting person was facing with short circuit. He was informed to said JE for the same fault and on asking of JE meter was changed.  It is clear mistake of department.  He was harassed for 7-8 months.  Challenged meter was installed on 13.05.2017 and on 13.06.2017 there is reading of 22 units for 30 days which was correct.  Due to technical mistake of electricity department, they added excessive charges of Rs.19176/-.  For rectify of the same he moved an application to SDO Power corporation Balachaur but nothing was done.  They also disconnection his electric connection on 11.08.2017 without any notice.  Lastly he claimed for restoration of electric connection and compensation for harassment for 7-8 months and claimed for removal of excessive charges.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly OPs appeared through its counsel and filed written reply whereby they contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable.  Complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint against answering OPs.  On merits, it is admitted that electric was installed in the name of Neeraj Kumar and also admitted that complainant given an application dated 27.02.2017 to SDO Balachaur II for the correction of bill regarding Rs.16380/-.  Sh.Balram Kumar JE checked the meter of Neeraj Kumar on 20.03.2017 and given report on 22.03.2017.  Complainant gave an application on 20.03.2017 and his meter changed and deposit Rs.120/- as challenge fee on 25.04.2017.  OP-1 changed the meter vide MCO dated 25.04.2017 at the time of removing the old meter consumption was recorded as 2514 units and new meter consumption was recorded as 1 unit.  Complainant also gave his consent letter to OP-1 that his meter will be sent to ME Lab Goraya and result of ME Lab will be accepted to him.  It is denied that meter was not working properly and was jumping.  Its entire consumption bill of the complainant. Meter will be sent to ME Lab on 11.10.2017 and as per report of ME Lab, meter is OK.  September – 2017 all the electric bill are consumption bill of complainant.  There is no reading taken by the meter reader on January -1^st  2017. On 03.02.2017 reading was taken by meter reader as 2264 O/O units.  On 20.09.2016 vide SCO No.57/63317 meter was installed.  Reading was taken by meter reader as 2264 O/O units for four months i.e. for December 2016 and on 05.02.2017 consumption was recorded 189 O/O units, 7, 17 was recorded 74 F units, and 9, 17 recorded as 85 F units.  Power com charge Rs.19176/- from the complainant on the basis of consumption in case the complainant did not deposit the consumption bill. It is also admitted that connection of complainant was disconnected on 16.08.2017 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.    
3. In order to prove the complaint, authorized Rep. of complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed the evidence.  Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurjinder Singh, AEE Ex.OP/A alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard counsel for the complainant and also gone through complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
5. Authorized Rep. of complainant as well as counsel for OPs argued similar to their respective pleadings. So no need to reproduce for want of repetition.  In nutshell, complainant gave an application on 20.03.2017 that his meter be changed and he deposited Rs.120/- as challenge fee on 25.04.2017, thereafter OP-1 changed the meter vide MCO dated 25.04.2017.  At the time of removing the old meter consumption was recorded as 2514 units.  On the other hand, Ex.C-9 also shows that old meter reading is 2514 units.  It means complainant’s consumption of units are high/excess as compared to after change of meter on  25.04.2017.  Moreover, ME Lab report Ex.OP-4 shows the status of meter is OK.  As per pleading of complainant, he issued first bill on 23.02.2017 by OPs.  Ex.C-8 is receipt of Rs.120/- which meter challenge fee. From this angle complainant fails to prove his case.
6. Resultantly, in view of above discussion, the present complaint filed by complainant – Neeraj Kumar is hereby dismissed. 
7. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 30.07.2018

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (A.P.S. Rajput)

Member                                   President