BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.61 of 2015

Date of Instt. 24.02.2015

Date of Decision :03.08.2015

Sewa Singh son of Charanjit Singh R/o Ladhewali, Joginder Nagar Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. The Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, The Mall, Patiala.

2. The Sub Divisional Officer, PSPCL, East Commercial Sub Division, Village Birring, Jalandhar Cantt.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.RK Bhagat Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.KL Dua Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is the lawful consumer of the services provided by the opposite parties and has been provided two domestic electricity connections bearing consumer No.J63DF163972X, account No.3000453727 and consumer No.J63DF163974H account No.3000453729 at the residential premises of the complainant. The complainant has been making the payments of electricity bills of electric consumption on time without fail and there is no default on the part of the complainant in making the payment of the electricity bills issued by the opposite parties. All of a sudden, the opposite parties have issued the impugned electricity bills for a sum of Rs.12070/- and Rs.19690/- in respect of the above said both electricity connections and the complainant was surprised to learn that opposite parties had demanded the above huge amounts from the complainant under the garb of above said electricity impugned bills without any information, details, reason or justification. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the above said electricity bills and not to disconnect his connections. He has also claimed damages and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the amount in question is legally payable by the complainant. The amount in question has been charged in respect of the electricity consumed. One bill was not paid by the complainant of both the connections and the said amount has been added in the next bill and complainant is legally bound to pay the same. So now he can not challenge, the arrear or the charges added in the present bill. There are two meter connections of the complainant. Even the J.E was deputed to check the connections and the bills of the complainant after the filing of the complaint and the amount charged is correct and the same is legally payable by the complainant. The copy of the report is attached. It is submitted that the bills of account No.DF 16/3972H dated 6.2.2015 is not served all of a sudden for Rs.12070/-. Actually prior to it the bill dated 1.12.2014 of this meter connection was served for the consumption for Rs.6240/-, which was not paid by the complainant and as such the surcharge of Rs.628/- was levied on the consumer as mentioned in the bill itself. For the convenience of this Forum, the month wise/bill wise detail of pending bills are as under:-

Month Reading Units Bill Amount Deposited Bal

Consumed Sur.

Old New

1. 17.9.14 13709 14764 1055 6240/- Nil 6868/-

to

01.12.14 14764 15533 769 5058/- Nil 11926/-

2. 01.12.14

to

21.02.15 Plus Reconnection fee for Non deposit of bill dated 12/2014.

3. So the bill is correct amounting to Rs.12070/-. The amount of Rs.12070/- became due from the complainant in respect of the consumption of 1824 units consumed for the period i.e w.e.f. 17.09.2014 to 21.2.2015 and the complainant is legally bound to pay the same. In respect of the other bill of account No.J63DF163974H, it is submitted that bill dated 6.2.2015 is issued for the period of 1.12.2014 to 6.2.2015 covering consumption from 7626 kwh to 10351 totaling 2705 units for Rs.19590/-. Both the bills of the complainant are based on the units consumed by the complainant. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. The copies of impugned bills are Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 on record. Counsel for the complainant contended that the bills are excessive. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that both the bills are on account of actual consumption. He further contended that the complainant had not paid bill dated 1.12.2014 of account No.DF 16/3972H for Rs.6240/- and as such the above said amount alongwith surcharge was added in the next bill and bill for Rs.12070/- was issued, which is on account of actual consumption of electricity. He further contended that second bill for Rs.19590/- is on account of actual consumption during period from 1.12.2014 to 6.2.2015. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for both the parties. The complainant has not shown if he paid the bill dated 1.12.2014 for Rs.6240/-. So this amount alongwith surcharge was rightly added in the subsequent impugned bill. The complainant never challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing the necessary fee. So when the complainant has not challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing the necessary fee, it can not be presumed that the meter is not recording correct consumption. The opposite parties even deputed J.E who visited the spot and after checking the meter submitted his report Ex.OP3 and as per his report the working of the meters is correct. So complainant has failed to prove by leading any cogent and reliable evidence that the impugned bills are result of any incorrect recording of consumption by the meters.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is not merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

03.08.2015 Member Member President