Complaint No: 85 of 2022.

       Date of Institution: 06.06.2022.

                Date of order:04.01.2024.

Baljit Singh Son of Sh. Gurdip Singh, resident of Green Avenue Colony, Gurdaspur Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143521.

                                                                                                                                                                                      .....Complainant.

                                                           VERSUS

1.       The Chairman / Head of the Department, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall Patiala. Pin Code – 147001.

2.       XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Division City Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143521.

3.       Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. City Sub Division, Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143521.

                                                                                                                                                    .....Opposite parties.                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                  Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present:   For the Complainant: Sh.Anand Mahajan, Advocate.

                For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Kabir Bahl, Advocate.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

          Baljit Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against P.S.P.C.Ltd. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that during the construction of residential house the complainant had obtained Temporary Domestic DPC electric connection bearing A/c No. 3004867751 having load 0.786 KW and after completion of the construction of house the complainant had paid the payment of Rs.17,530/- as net bill amount towards the said Temporary Domestic DPC electric connection to the opposite parties. It was pleaded that thereafter the complainant obtained electric connection bearing No.95264442 which is installed outside his residential house situated at Green Avenue Colony Gurdaspur under D.S. Category having sanctioned loan 2.980 KW and he has pay the electricity consumption charges to the opposite parties regularly. It was further pleaded that on 19.04.2022 the opposite parties issued bill vide which the opposite parties raised the illegal excessive demand of Rs.57,950/- wherein the amount of Rs.54,843/- shown as Sundry charges. In fact the alleged Sundry charges shown as Rs.54,843/- in the bill in question is illegal, null and void, arbitrary, cryptic in nature and against the provisions of law and against the Principle of Natural Justice. The alleged demand raised by the opposite parties is without any reason and wrongly imposed liability on the complainant by the opposite parties which amounts of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that the complainant approach the opposite parties and requested to rectify the bill dated 19.04.2022 vide which the illegal demand of Rs.54,843/- as Sundry charges has been raised by the opposite parties and further requested the opposite parties to issue the fresh actual bill after rectifying the same but they put the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to do rather the opposite parties passing illegal threats to disconnect the electric connection in question illegally and forcibly. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to withdraw their illegal demand of Rs.54,843/- as Sundry charges and rectify/corrected the bill dated 19.04.2022 and issued bill as per the actual consumption charges of connection in question. The opposite parties may be burdened with a cost of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and torture, the opposite parties may be directed to pay the same to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed and the compliant is time barred. It was pleaded that no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint which is filed just to harass the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that temporary meter of the complainant was checked in M.E Lab and as per the Challan No.59 dated 13.08.2020, the final reading on the meter of the complainant was 4956. At the time of disconnection of the temporary connection of the complainant, the meter was sent to M.E Lab for final, the complainant paid the amount of reading 994, but it was to be paid for 4956 reading. It was further pleaded that earlier complaint was given notice to him and again to deposit the arrears amounting of Rs.54,843/- which was due from the complainant which was consumed by him against meter No. 3004867751 which was earlier in the name of the complainant. It was further pleaded that notice No. 302 dated 16.03.2022 was issued to the complainant to pay the amount of Rs.54,843/- and he was further informed that this due bill of Rs.54,843/- shall be added to his new A/c No.3005644432 in case he did not deposit the amount within 7 days. It was further pleaded that the complainant did not deposit the amount; as such this bill was added to his new account which he is liable to pay. The complainant instead of paying the disputed amount filed the present complaint to save his skin on false and frivolous grounds.

          On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Baljit Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.C-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has filed documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 alongwith reply.

6.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties.

8.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.       As per Ex.C2 placed on record by the complainant, an amount of Rs.54,843/- has been added as sundry charges in the electricity bill dated 19.04.2022 issued by opposite party No.3 bearing A/c No.3005644432 which is in the name of the complainant.

10.     Complainant alleged it as illegal and excessive demand raised by the opposite parties and prayed to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.54,843/- in the bill in dispute. The complainant has further pleaded he had obtained a temporary domestic connection bearing A/c No.3004867751 with the sanctioned load of 0.786 KW for construction of house. After completion of the work he has already paid the final bill as per last reading taken by the employees of the opposite parties and got the connection disconnected. Copy of the bill is placed at Ex.C3. It has further been mentioned by the complainant that afterwards the new regular connection was obtained in the same premises bearing A/c No.3005644432. The bill in dispute as raised by the opposite parties against a new connection by adding the sundry charges pertaining to the previous connection.

11.     Opposite parties in their written statement denied all the allegations and stated that the meter of the temporary connection of the complainant was checked in M.E. Lab. after removal from the site as per Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-7 and the meter reading was found to be 4956 whereas the last bill was issued upto 994 units. So the sundry charges added in the disputed bill belong to difference of unpaid units consumed by the complainant with the previous temporary connection. It was further pleaded by the opposite parties that a notice No.302 dated 16.03.2022 as Ex.OP-2 was also issued to the complainant before adding it to the regular bill for recovery of the pending amount. Opposite parties in their additional evidence placed on record copy of request of complainant for disconnection of meter and two electricity bills of temporary connections as Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-7. It was also argued by the Ld. counsel for the opposite parties that as per last electricity bill as Ex.OP-7, the last reading was 994 units and the notice was issued as per reading of the meter mentioned in the challan No.59 dated 18.08.2020 as Ex.OP-1.

          Perusal of evidences put forth by the opposite parties i.e. the application of the complainant which is placed at Ex.OP-5 for disconnection of the meter of temporary connection permanently, it is seen that final reading is written as 00994 dated 08.07.2020 and the final bill amount is also mentioned on the application as Rs.17,746/- by the officials of the opposite parties.

12.     It is neither understood nor it has been explained by the opposite parties by way of cogent evidence that if the meter was removed from the premises of the complainant on 08.07.2020 with the reading mentioned as 00994 then how the reading of the meter can go upto 4956 units while the said meter was in the custody of the opposite parties after removal from the site. The complainant has also mentioned that he has already paid the final bill as per last reading taken at site.

13.     From the above discussion we are of considered opinion that the reading mentioned by the concerned J.E. Sh.Vijay Kumar on the application of the complainant as 00994 units has been taken at site before removal of the meter and it has to be taken as correct, full and final reading for final billing. There is no justification of reading shown in the challan of the M.E. Lab. without any basis. Hence, charging of amount based on unexplained meter reading after removal of the meter is not justified at all.

14.     So, in view of the aforesaid discussion considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is partly allowed and amount of Rs.54,843/- charged in the disputed electricity bill dated 19.04.2022 as sundry charges is hereby set aside being not recoverable. Further opposite party No.3 is directed to refund/adjust the amount already deposited by the complainant from this dispute amount. No order as to costs.           

15.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.

16.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                          

      (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                             President   

Announced:                                               (B.S.Matharu)

Jan. 04, 2024                                                     Member

YP.