DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  209

                                                Instituted on:    01.05.2018

                                                Decided on:       31.10.2018

Harpal Singh S/o Late Sh. Sadhu Singh, resident of Village Fatehgarh Punjgrahian, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Sandhaur, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

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

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri R.K.Singla, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

Quorum:   Inderjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Inderjeet Kaur/Vinod Kumar Gulati, Members.

1.             Shri Harpal 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 father of the complainant Sadhu Singh (now deceased) obtained one domestic electricity connection bearing account number PG71/414 at his house with a sanctioned load of 1.00 KW and Shri Sadhu Singh has died about 17 years ago and since then the complainant is residing in the house and has been paying the bills regularly.  Further case of the complainant is that in the month of January 2015, the meter of the complainant along with other consumers was changed by the Ops in routine as per the policy of PSPCL and a new meter was installed outside the premises of the complainant, but the new installed meter was showing excess consumption, so he challenged the meter by depositing the meter challenge fee.  Thereafter the Ops issued letter number 40 dated 5.4.2017 to the complainant in the name of his father Sadhu Singh to deposit Rs.10,202/- on account of difference of consumption for the period from 3/2015 to 6/2015 on the basis of some audit report. After receipt of the same, the complainant approached the Ops to withdraw the same, but nothing happened.  Thereafter the complainant was surprised to receive the bill dated 27.12.2017 for Rs.11,511/- including Rs.10847/- as sundry charges, which is said to be illegal one.  It is also mentioned in the complaint that as per the rules and regulations of PSPCL,  no amount can be charged from the consumer after a period of 2 years when it became due unless the same is regularly carried in the regular bills.  The complainant has further averred that though he visited the Ops to withdraw the demand in question, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the said illegal demand of Rs.10,847/- raised through the bill dated 27.12.2017 and further to refund the same if deposited by the complainant under protest during the pendency of the complaint and further 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 there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and that the complaint is false and frivolous one which should be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that the disputed electricity connection in question is running in the name of Sadhu Singh under DS category, therefore, it is stated that the complainant is not a  consumer of the OPs.  It is admitted that the meter of the complainant was changed by Godrej company in routine mater and the same was changed by MCO number 71/60114, which was effected on 19.1.2015. It is stated further that the complainant also challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing the fee of Rs.120/- and at that time the complainant given an affidavit cum undertaking that all the result of the ME laboratory shall be acceptable to the complainant.   Thereafter the meter in question was replaced.  It is admitted that the OPs issued letter number 40 dated 5.4.2017 to the consumer regarding deposit of Rs.10,200/-on the recommendation of audit party as the audit party overhauled the account of the complainant. The demand raised against the complainant is said to be justified.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit and closed evidence.

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

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by using the electricity connection in question, which was earlier obtained by his deceased father Shri Sadhu Singh and since then has been paying the electricity bills regularly. In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 27.12.2017 for Rs.11,511/-, wherein an amount of Rs.10,202/- has been added as sundry charges, which is said to be illegal one. On the other hand, the case of the Ops is that the account of the complainant was overhauled by the audit party and the demand of Rs.10,202/- raised against the complainant is said to be justified.  The OPs issued notice number 40 dated 5.4.2017 for an amount of Rs.10,202/- to the complainant regarding the amount raised by the audit party from 3/15 to 6/15, but the complainant did not deposit the amount within 15 days as prescribed in the notice.  However, the OPs added the amount of Rs.10,847/- in the subsequent bill dated 27.12.2017, but the complainant again did not deposit the bill rather challenged the same before this Forum.   It is proved on record that the OPs issued notice number 40 dated 5.4.2017 whereby the complainant was asked to deposit the amount of Rs.10,202/- and the same amount was subsequently demanded vide bill dated 27.12.2017, but the complainant earlier did not chose to challenge the notice dated 5.4.2017. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not challenge the same earlier and in the circumstances we find that the demand raised by the Ops seems to be genuine one and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

6.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the case and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 31, 2018.

                                                        (Inderjeet Kaur)

                                                        Presiding Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member