DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  309

                                                Instituted on:    06.07.2017

                                                Decided on:       19.09.2017

Ranjeet Singh Maur son of Sh. Gobinder Singh, R/O Street No.13, Prem Basti, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

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

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Rajinder Goyal, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Neeraj Kalra, Advocate.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Ranjeet Singh Maur,  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 MN-57/1892 with a sanctioned load of 0.900 KW at his house situated at Patiala Road Sangrur. It is further averred that the house in question remains locked most of the time as he has another house at Prem Basti, Sangrur and the bills are charged on MMC basis.  Now, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 8.5.2017 for a consumption of 37 units for Rs.7,74,110/-, which is highly excessive and without any basis.  The complainant approached the OP number 1 for withdrawal of the same, but nothing was done by the Ops despite approaching the OP number 1. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.7,74,110/- raised vide bill dated 8.5.2017 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is admitted that the complainant has obtained a domestic connection having a load of 0.900 KW.  It is further admitted that the OPs issued bill for Rs.7,74,110/- and further admitted that there is nothing previous due towards the complainant.  It is stated that the excess issuance of the bill is due to the support billing machine, which wrongly collected the data from the OP number 2 and wrongly prepared the bill to the tune of Rs.7,74,110/-. However, any mistake on the part of the Ops has been denied.  It is stated further that the complainant never approached the Ops for correction of the bill.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12 copies of the bills 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 account statement 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.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the connection in question has been obtained by the complainant from the Ops and has been using the same for domestic purposes.  The grievance of the complainant is that since the connected load of the connection in question is only 0.900 KW, but the OPs issued the bill dated 8.5.2017 for the consumption of 37 units for Rs.7,74,110/- and has prayed that the same be withdrawn being excessive and exaggerated one.  On the other hand, in the reply though the OPs have admitted that the same has been wrongly issued due to the mistake of SBM (Support Billing Machine), but at the same time the excessive bill dated 8.5.2017 was not withdrawn even after filing of the present complaint on 6.7.2017.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the wrong and excessive bill was not withdrawn despite the fact that it was in the knowledge of the OPs that the same is excessive one and we further failed to understand how the machine is only responsible for the wrong act of the Ops.  Under the circumstances, we feel that the OPs are not only deficient in service but are also negligent in issuing the wrong and excessive bill, which caused great mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant.

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the demand of Rs.7,74,110/- raised vide bill dated 8.5.2017 and further to issue the fresh bill for consumption of 37 units only. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.  This order of ours 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.

                September 19, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member