Punjab

Sangrur

CC/166/2017

Mandhir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Sanjeev Garg

25 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    166

                                                Instituted on:      19.04.2017

                                                Decided on:       25.07.2017

 

 

Mandhir Singh son of Amarjit Singh, R/o H.No.30, Gali No.2, Punia Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1.     Punjab State Power Supply Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its C.M.D.

2.     Asstt. Engineer, (SDO), Sub Division, Punjab State Power Supply Corporation Ltd. Badrukhan, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Sanjeev Garg, Adv.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Mandhir Singh,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained one domestic electricity connection bearing account number S42RB531769N and has been paying the bills regularly. The complainant has further averred in the complaint that the OPs issued bill dated 9.3.2017 for Rs.8930/- which is said to be wrong, as such the complainant approached the Ops for correction of the bill, but the Ops instead of correction of the same, issued fresh bill for Rs.21,930/- including arrears of Rs.12739/- as sundry charges.  Further case of the complainant is that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was giving some noises, as such he lodged the complaint with the Ops on 30.9.2014 and the Ops changed the meter on 2.10.2014 and the last reading taken by the Ops on 15.8.2014 was 46138, but the Ops mentioned the reading of the meter wrongly as 48814 instead of 46814 and the ME laboratory found the meter to be quite OK, but the Ops charged the amount for 2000 units in excess, but nothing happened despite approaching the OPs by the complainant a number of times. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.12,739/- on account of sundry charges raised in the bill dated 9.3.2017 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands,  that the reading of the meter was to be seen by the ME laboratory and reading of the meter was to be mentioned by the ME laboratory alone, as such, it is said that the reading has rightly been mentioned by the ME laboratory.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by getting a domestic electricity connection in question.  It is stated that the bill in question was corrected after verifying the account of the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, ExC-2 to Ex.C-7 copies of electricity bills and Ex.C-8 copy of application dated 29.9.2014 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit and Ex.OP-2 copy of ME laboratory report and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is not in dispute that the complainant is the consumer of the electricity connection in question under the Ops and has been paying the bills of electricity regularly.  The complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 9.3.2017, whereby the Ops have charged an amount of Rs.12,739/- as arrears of previous consumption as the Ops had wrongly taken the reading wrongly of the removed meter as 48814 instead of 46814, but the Ops have stated that the same has rightly been charged. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that on 30.09.2014, when the complainant lodged the complaint with the Ops, then one official namely Madan visited the premises of the complainant to remove the fault and as such he broken the terminal seal of the meter and mentioned the reading of the meter in question as 46814, which has been duly signed by Madan.  Again we have perused the copy of meter removal receipt Ex.C-8, which is duly signed by one Jasvir Singh on 2.10.2014, which shows that he mentioned that the seals of the meter are intact, but there is no mention of the meter reading.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why at the time of removal of the meter for checking in the ME laboratory, the reading was not mentioned.  We have also perused the copy of ME laboratory report Ex.OP-2, but it does not bear the signature of the complainant. There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why the complainant was not called for at the time of checking of the meter in the ME laboratory.  Further there is no affidavit produced on record of the ME laboratory official to support the contention of the Ops in the reply.  Further no consumption data of the complainant in respect of the meter has been produced on record to establish the consumption of the complainant.    In the circumstances, we feel that the Ops have miserably failed to establish that the consumption was rightly charged from the complainant.  Further there is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they raised such a demand of Rs.12,739/- in the current consumption bill dated 9.3.2017, whereas the same relates to the year 2014.  Moreover, it is worth mentioning here that the Ops have filed a vague reply only denying the allegations of the complainant and no detailed reply has been filed.   As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint of the complainant is worth acceptance.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the demand of Rs.12,739/- raised vide bill dated 9.3.2017.  The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.         

 

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 25, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member