Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/533/2011

S. Baljinder Singh Sodhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer, Electricity - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jan 2012

ORDER


Disctrict Consumer Redressal ForumChadigarh
CONSUMER CASE NO. 533 of 2011
1. S. Baljinder Singh SodhiR/o 3 3135, Sector 27/D, Chd. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. The Executive Engineer, ElectricityOP. Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh.2. The S.D.O. Electricity,Divn. No. 3, UT, Chandigarh. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 02 Jan 2012
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

Consumer Complaint No

:

533 of 2011

Date of Institution

:

07.09.2011

Date of Decision   

:

02.01.2012

 

S.Baljinder Singh Sodhi, son of Late Sh.Ranbir Singh Sodhi, resident of H.No.3135, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh.

 

..…Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.       The Executive Engineer, Electricity OP. Divn. No.3, U.T., Chandigarh

 

2.       The S.D.O. Electricity, Divn. No.3, U.T., Chandigarh.

 

.…..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:     Sh.P.D. GOEL                                    PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                         MEMBER

DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                     Sh.Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for OPs.    

 

PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the holder of electricity account No.103/2706/3135/01R. It is the allegation of the complainant that he was receiving the electricity bills on the higher side since the year 2010, in an arbitrary manner.  The complainant wrote letter and in turn, the OPs sent their official to check the meter. The defect in the meter was pointed out.  The meter was also got checked by the OPs from the laboratory. As per report of the M&P Lab, there was a defect in the meter.  It is further the case of the complainant that he made a request to the OPs to adjust the previous billed amount or to refund the same.

                   It is the allegation of the complainant that the OPs sent bill of Rs.24,711/- for the period from 10.2.2011 to 20.3.2011, which was on the higher side.  The SDO of the OPs also asked the complainant to deposit Rs.3000/-, which was deposited by him.  It is further the allegation of the complainant that the OPs sent another bill of Rs.1009/- for the period from 20.2.2011 to 20.4.2011 qua which, the amount of Rs.22,791/- was added on account of arrears. It is further the case of the complainant that as per the order of A.R.A., the amount of Rs.1100/- was paid by him. It is further the case of the complainant that the OPs sent another bill for the period from 20.4.2011 to 20.6.2011, qua which Rs.17,655/- was added on account of sundry allowance.  The demand raised by the OPs for the said period is stated to be illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this complaint.

 2.               OPs filed the joint reply. That the complainant is regularly paying the bills from 08/2010 to 10/2010. It is replied that upto the period 06/2011 to 08/2011, only part payments of Rs.3000/- and Rs.1100/- had been made.  It is further replied that the amount of Rs.10,119/- which includes the surcharge is outstanding against the complainant. 

                   It is further replied that as per the report of M & P Sub Division “The result of energy meter is not within the permissible limit.”  Thus, the account of the consumer-complainant was overhauled and, thereafter, the amount of Rs.17,655/- was refunded/credited during the billing period 04/2011 to 06/2011. It is further replied that upto the billing period of 06/2011 to 08/2011 the amount of Rs.10,119/- is outstanding, whereas the complainant had made part payment of Rs.1100/- and  Rs.3000/- only.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations of the complainant, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.              

3.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                We have heard the complainant in person and the Govt. Pleader for the OPs and have also perused the record.

5.                During the course of arguments, Sh.Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the OPs made a statement that the OPs are ready to charge the complainant on average consumption of the last three or six months or the average of the same months of the preceding years. The said statement is admitted to be correct by the complainant.

6.                In view of the said statement, the complaint is allowed and the disputed demand raised by the OPs for the period from 10.2.2011 to 20.6.2011, is ordered to be quashed with the direction to the OPs to charge the complainant – consumer on average consumption of the last three or six months or the average of the same months of the preceding years, per Instruction No.115 of the Sales Manual. No order as to costs. This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

7.                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

 

02.01.2012

[ Madanjit Kaur Sahota]

 

[Rajinder Singh Gill]

(P.D.Goel)

rb

Member

 

Member

President


MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBERHONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER