BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.489 of 2018
Date of Instt. 27.11.2018
Date of Decision: 08.08.2022
Sukhdev Kaur wife of Hazara Singh resident of 70, New Suraj Ganj, Jalandhar.
..........Complainants
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through Assistant Executive Engineer Abadpura, Jalandhar.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Divisional Office-2, Model Town Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: None for the Complainant.
Sh. S. K. S. Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 to 3.
Order
Dr. HarveenBhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant has one connection in the same residential address for her house which is used by the complainant and paying the bills of the consumption to the OPs regularly. The complainant is the consumer of the OPs, vide account No.3001353532 bearing consumer No.J72BC290512Y at her residential address and the said connection is residential. The complainant had been making the payment of the bills of electric consumption regularly without fail to OPs and no dues for electric consumption are due from complainant till present date except for part of disputed amount of Rs.61,890/-. In the month of September, 2018 the complainant received an excessive bill of Rs.13,430/- which was although paid but was not proper and was paid under resistance and the same is also liable to be adjusted if found excessive. Thereafter the complainant received a hefty bill of Rs.61,890/- on 27.10.2018. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs in the office at Abadpura and enquired about the issuance of above said excessive bills and was not given proper bearing or satisfactory reply and were also not ready to give a patient hearing with a sufficient reasoning to the complainant and she kept on visited different officers alongwith her husband who were callous and did not attend the complainant and ultimately on 14.11.2018 due to repeated insistence received a written complaint but the complainant is apprehensive of no immediate response, hence the present complaint. The OPs have issued an excessive bill to the complainant for an amount of Rs.61,890/- and the said act of the OPs in claiming the impugned amount connection No.J72BC290512Y is liable to be set aside by this Commission on the following grounds i.e. the complainant is not in arrear of any amount with the OPs and the demand of Rs.61,890/- is otherwise illegal, wrong, incorrect and was not accordance with the circulars and law of electricity. Further, the previous bill so paid amounting to Rs.13,430/- was also excessive yet, paid may kindly be adjusted in future further bills.
2. The due date of payment of impugned amount of the electricity bill was 09.11.2018/12.11.2018 and the complainant is ready to make the actual consumed electricity. The OPs have acted negligently and have resorted to unfair trade practice while performing their duties towards the complainant who is the consumer of the OPs and in pursuance of that issued a bill for the excessive amount of Rs.61,890/- which is not liable to be paid by the complainant 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 to waive of the amount of Rs.61,890/- claimed in the bill from the complainant for the electric connection No.J72BC290512Y. Further OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and has been filed just to harass the answering OPs. The complaint filed by the complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary party. It is further averred that the complainant not approached the Commission with clean hands. The amount claimed by the OP is of the electricity consumed by the consumer as well as the previous outstanding amount and charges due towards the consumers qua the account No.300135352 bearing consumer no.J72BC290512Y alongwith the outstanding charges due towards the consumer. The details of which were already provided to the consumer. It is further averred that this commission is having no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. No cause of action arose to the complainant against the answering OPs rather cause of action arisen to the answering OPs against the complainant for dragging the answering OPs in the false and frivolous litigation. On merits, the factum with regard to installation of the electricity meter in the house of the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the OPs as nobody has appeared on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The complainant has filed the present complaint challenging two bills of Rs.13,430/- and Rs.61,890/-, which are allegedly not in accordance with the circulars and are excessive. It has been alleged that the complainant has already made the payment of all the bills and nothing is due nor the complainant is in arrears of any amount. The complainant has proved on record the detail of the electricity bills from 19.11.2015 to 27.10.2018 as Ex.C-1. This document shows about the old reading, new reading, duration and the amount paid by the complainant. This letter has been written by the complainant to the XEN PSPCL, Jalandhar. The complainant has proved on record the bill of Rs.13,430/- Ex.C-2 and the bill showing the amount of Rs.61,890/- Ex.C-3. The amount of Rs.13,430/- was made by the complainant vide Ex.C-4. Though, the complainant has alleged that she made this payment under protest on 04.09.2018, but there is no such document on record to show that this amount was paid by the complainant under protest. She has also proved on record the letter written by her to the SDO, vide which she had represented that the bill of Rs.61,890/- is very high and request has been made to adjust the bill.
8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the OP has denied that any exorbitant amount has been demanded by the OP. It has been alleged by the OP that the bills were issued as per the rules and regulations of PSPCL and Circulars. The amount has been demanded as per the consumption made by the complainant. Though, the OP has alleged in the written statement that the calculation made by the complainant, vide Ex.C-1 is not correct and they have attached the correct corrections alongwith the written statement, but nothing has been attached with the written statement by the OPs.
9. As per the calculation made by the complainant Ex.C-1, the bill shown in the column of amount paid is from 19.11.2015 till 27.10.2018 and the amount paid by the complainant shown is minimum Rs.2640/- and maximum Rs.6540/- upto 03.07.2018. Perusal of this document shows that on the second page of its calculation, the period of the bill has been shown upto 28.02.2018 with old reading 24515320 and new reading 8580. On the next page, again the complainant has mentioned the duration of the period from 31.08.2017 to 01.05.2018. Again 31.08.2017 to 03.07.2018 and next from 01.09.2017 to 23.08.2018 i.e. for Rs.13,430/-. The bills mentioned for the period from 31.08.2017 to 03.07.2018 as mentioned in the calculation have not been filed by the complainant, which may show as to why the bills of the same period have been issued by the OPs. The bill Ex.C-2 which shows the period 23.08.2018 is not legible and from this document, it cannot be found as to whether there are any arrears or not. Since neither the complainant nor the counsel for the complainant is coming to the Commission to attend the case, therefore, the copy or original bill have not been produced by the complainant. Perusal of Ex.C-3 another disputed bill from the period 23.08.2018 to 27.10.2018 shows the arrears of Rs.39,825/-. Since the previous bills have not been produced on record by the complainant to tally with the calculation filed by the complainant, therefore it cannot be said as to whether the bill issued is legal or illegal. The amount of Rs.13,430/- has been paid by the complainant on 04.09.2018, but there is no document to show that whether this amount was paid under protest or not. It can also not be ascertained as to whether the arrears shown in the bill Ex.C-3 pertain to which period since no bill has been produced on record by the complainant. The complainant was granted the relief of depositing the 50% of the amount of Rs.61,890/- within seven working days on 28.11.2018 and the complainant has not produced on record any document to show that this amount has been deposited by her or not. In the above said circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that the OPs have issued wrong and illegal bills and the same is excessive and accordingly, the complainant has failed to prove her case and thus, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
08.08.2022 Member Member President
