DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 486 of 26.12.2018

                                      Decided on:         10.1.2023

Babu Singh S/o Sawan Singh R/o H.No.17, St.No.23, Anand Nagar-B, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. SDO/Assistant PSPCL, West Commercial, Patiala.
2. SE,PSPCL, West Sub Division, Near Bus Stand, Patiala.
3. The Chairman/Secretary, PSPCL, The Mall, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.P.C.Sardana,counsel for complainant

                                      Sh.Sajan Talwar,counsel for OPs.

 ORDER

                                      S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Babu Singh S/o Sawan Singh       (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against PSPCL (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. It is averred that the complainant is consumer of electricity connection bearing No.3000084578, installed outside the premises of the complainant. It is further averred that complainant made complaints on 6.5.2017 and 15.11.2018 regarding the non functioning of the meter.
3. It is further averred that the OPs issued electricity consumption bills amounting to Rs.40018/-with due date cash/online 29.10.2018 and for Rs.20628/- with due date cash/online 15.7.2018 which are very excessive and has prayed for giving a direction to the OPs to restrain the OPs for recovering the bills in dispute and also to pay compensation and costs of the complaint. Hence this complaint.
4. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed the written statement taking various preliminary objections.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant  is consumer of the OPs for the connection in question and has been using the electricity .All other averments made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of  the complaint, ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents, Ex.C1, copy of application, Ex.C2 copy of reminder of application, Ex.C3 copy of bill dated 12.10.2018, Ex.C4 copy of bill dated 20.6.2017,Ex.C5 copy of bill of Hari Singh, Ex.C6 copy of bill of Malook Singh, Ex.C7 copy of extract of news paper, Ex.C8 copy of bill dated 16.12.2018 and closed the evidence.
7. In rebuttal, ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Er.Jatinder Singh Kanda, alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP10 copies of bills and closed the evidence.
8. Counsel for both the parties have argued their case on the basis of their respective pleadings and the evidence adduced on record.
9. Admittedly, complainant is the consumer of the OPs having domestic electricity connection No.3000084578. Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that meter of the complainant was not functioning properly and he made complaints on 6.5.2017 and 15.11.2018 Exs.C1 and C2 respectively. The complainant has challenged the bills issued on 12.10.2018 for Rs.40,018/-,Ex.C3 and bill dated 20.6.2017 for Rs.20,628/-,Ex.C4.The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the connection is of 1KW and excessive bills have been issued.The counsel for the complainant during arguments has also disputed various bills paid by him on the ground that the amount has not been credited to his account.
10. The ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that load of the complainant is not 1KW as alleged by the ld counsel for the complainant but the actual load is 1.690KW. He has further argued that complaints dated 6.5.2017 and 15.11.2018 were duly received by the OPs and suitable action was taken by them. The ld. counsel further argued that the electricity meter of the complainant has been installed outside his premises as per the policy of the OPs so that the same is accessible to the OPs whenever they go to check the same.
11. On careful perusal of the various documents placed on record by the OPs , it has been observed that the meter of the complainant was changed on 18.10.2016 as per code ‘C’ that is change of meter with initial reading as 1 and the first bill dated 22.8.2017,Ex.OP1 was issued to the complainant for the period from 18.10.2016 to 22.8.2017 i.e. for 308 days( approximately for 10 months) for the consumption of 2020 units, for an amount of Rs.15,490/-.The complainant did not pay the said bill and the amount kept on increasing due to non payment of the bills Exs.OP2, OP3, OP4, OP5, OP6,OP7 and OP8, which is for Rs.40230/-.This fact has not been disputed by the complainant.
12. The perusal of the record shows that the complainant had not paid any bill issued to him for the period from 18.10.2016 to 12.10.2018 i.e. almost for a period of two years. These bills relate to the consumption charges only and no surcharge/extra charges have been levied to the complainant in these bills. The complainant had then made the payment of Rs.19800/- on 17.10.2018, which has been duly reflected in the accounts of the complainant and the next bill for Rs.22,280/-,Ex.OP9 was issued to the complainant after making the adjustment of Rs.19800/-.
13. Further the details of the payments made by the complainant from time to time were processed by the OPs. During the course of arguments ld. counsel for OPs submitted a detail of payments made and received, and all the payments averred to have been made by the complainant had been duly adjusted in his account as per the said details copy of which was provided to the complainant.
14. From the above discussion, it transpires that all the bills issued to the complainant are in order and are based on actual consumption made by the complainant, rather the complainant was not in the habit of making regular payments against the said bills leading to accumulation of bills, which were challenged by the complainant. There is thus, no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As a result, finding no merit in the complaint we dismiss the same with no order as to costs.          
15.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President