Punjab

Sangrur

CC/493/2017

Gurdev kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Rajinder Goyal

22 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    493

                                                Instituted on:      22.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       22.02.2018

 

Gurdev Kaur W/O Lachman Singh, resident of Hareri Road, Near Boriyan Wali Factory, Kartarpura Basti, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Badrukhan, District Sangrur.

2.     Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall, Patiala through its CMD.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant    :       Shri T.S.Manesh, Adv.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Gurdev Kaur,  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 is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining one domestic electricity connection bearing account number S42KP261685 and has been paying the bills regularly to the OPs.   The complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 15.7.2017 for Rs.13,770/- which was highly excessive and inflated one.  The case of the complainant is that after receiving the bill in question, she approached the OPs and on checking it was found that the electricity supply of the complainant was connected to the meter of one Karamjit Singh and vice versa, as such the complainant suffered heavy loss as the consumption of Karamjit Singh was on the higher side, which was corrected by the officials of the OPs later on.  Further case of the complainant is that the Ops issued letter number 1315 dated 21.7.2017 to the complainant directing her to deposit Rs.8680/- alleging connection load to be 3.806 KW against the sanctioned load of 0.96 KW. The case of the complainant is that she never used any such excessive load nor the same was ever checked and which is the result of only the above said connection of the supply to the meter of Karamjit Singh.  Nothing happened despite service of legal notice dated 5.8.2017 upon the OPs.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the said demand of Rs.8680/- raised vide letter number 1315 dated 21.7.2017 and further prayed to overhaul the account of the complainant from the date when meter was shifted outside of her house and to refund the excess amount so calculated and also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction and that the complainant has dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs.  It is further admitted that all the meters of the consumers were shifted outside of the houses by the Godrej Private Limited under the supervision of APDRP as per rules/guidelines of the PSPCL in routine manner and during the shifting of the meter, the connection of the complainant was wrongly connected with the meter connection of other consumer namely Karamjit Singh which was later on rectified.  Further case of the Ops is that at the time of checking the connected load of the complainant was found to be 3.906 KW against the sanctioned load of 0.64 KW and as such, the demand of Rs.8680/- has been rightly raised against the complainant which is said to be justified.  Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 affidavit and copies of documents 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 an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining the electricity connection in question from the Ops.  It is also an admitted fact that all the meters of the consumers were shifted outside of the houses of the consumers by Godrej Private Limited under the supervision of APDRP as per rules/guidelines of the PSPCL in routine manner and during the shifting of the meter of the complainant, the connection of the complainant was wrongly connected with the meter connection of other consumer, namely, Karamjit Singh. Now, the fact remains that the Ops have admitted that the supply of the said Karamjit Singh was connected to the meter of the complainant, which had higher consumption of the electricity and due to that the complainant received excessive bills, which when came to the knowledge of the complainant, she apprised the Ops and then only the Ops corrected/rectified their mistake of wrong connection of the supply of electricity.  Now, the fact remains that the complainant suffered financial loss due to the negligent act of the Ops.  As such, we feel that the account of the complainant should be overhauled for that period only and the excess if any charged from the complainant should be refunded.  Another grievance of the complainant is that the OPs wrongly issued notice number 1315 dated 21.7.2017 demanding an amount of Rs.8680/- on the ground that connected load was more than the sanctioned load of 0.96 KW.  We have perused the checking report dated 21.7.2017 Ex.OP-2, but it nowhere contains the signatures of the complainant or her representative, as such, we feel that this checking report is not binding on the complainant, more so when the complainant was never called at the time of checking of the load in question. Further this checking report Ex.Op-2 contains nothing  that who checked the connection in question as the name and designation of the official who checked the load is lying blank.  As such, we are of the opinion that this checking report has no value in the eye of law.

6.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to overhaul the account of the complainant from the date when the meter was shifted outside her house up to the date of correction of the supply to the connection of the complainant from the connection of Karamjit Singh as stated above and inform the complainant accordingly. We further order the OPs to withdraw the demand of Rs.8680/- raised vide letter number 1315 dated 21.7.2017. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation 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.

                February 22, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member