Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/126/2015

Kusum Lata - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Navdeep Lochan, Charanjit Lochan

18 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.       :  126 of 10.11.2015

Date of Decision:                    :  18.05.2016

Kusum Lata D/o Late Sahib Singh R/o New Vikas Nagar Saloh Road Nawanshahr, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1.       The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman.

2.       The Superintendent Engineer, The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Circle SBS Nagar, Garhshankar Road, Nawanshahr.

3.       The Executive Engineer, The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Division, Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

4.       The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Rural), The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

                                                                    …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

For complainant            :         Ms.Charanjit Lochan, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Ms.Poonam Attri, Advocate

 

ORDER

                                      SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

1.       Smt.Kusum Lata, has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) against the opposite party No.1 to 4 (hereinafter referred as Ops) praying for the following reliefs:-

“I.      To direct the OPs to set aside the bill cum assessment order dated 22.08.2015 pertaining to electricity charges.

II.      OPs be permanently restrained from recovering alleged amount of Rs.11290/- from complainant.

2.       Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she has domestic connection account No.N43SF64/0916 in her name in her house, situated at New Vikas Nagar, Nawanshahr. Earlier the bill for electric consumption used to be between Rs.300/- to 400/- per month.  She was paying all the electricity consumption bills regularly, without any default. In the month of June 2015, when complainant and her mother were in the house,  suddenly the electricity supply stopped and on checking, it was found that there was sparking in the electricity meter in question and she immediately informed the electricity department  on 22.08.2015,  on repeated calls, two persons came from the electric  department but they did not pay any heed to the complaint made by her. on next day the said persons disclosed that there is a serious fault in the meter and advised for its replacement and said officials changed the meter.  Complainant made a verbal request that meter be got checked from the official laboratory of the Ops, but the said officials did not pay any heed to her request.  Thereafter, she lodged a complaint with the OPs but nothing was done  by them.  On 22.08.2015 she received a bill-cum-assessment order from the Ops vide which the OPs have raised unlawful demand of Rs.11,290/- from her.  It is averred that Rs.2300/- had already been charged by the OPs but no receipt was given by them and it was assured that this amount will be adjusted in the next electricity bills.  It is also averred that after receiving the said bill cum assessment order, the complainant approached OPs but all in vain as the OPs refused to admit the lawful claim of the complainant and threatened that in case she commits default in making payment of the aforesaid amount, her connection would be disconnected.  The complainant requested and approached the OPs many times and also gave in writing for reassessment of the bill but all in vain hence this complaint.

3.       On put to notice, OPs filed joint written version, stating therein that it is correct that the domestic electric meter is in the name of the complainant.  The electricity bill depends upon the consumption of electricity consumed by complainant. On receipt of complaint from complainant, the employee of OPs visited her house and checked the meter.  She gave an application dated 22.06.2015 to OP No-4 for checking of the meter, Sh.Harbans Singh JE, In charge of the area checked the meter and gave report that meter had burnt  and was changed vide MCO No.100000931252 dated 22.06.2015 in the presence of Rama mother of complainant.  At the time of effecting the MCO the reading of the removed meter was 3007 and mother of complainant signed the copy of MCO.  Complainant neither challenged the old meter removed by OP No.4 nor deposited the challenge fee.  The complainant gave consent to OP No.4 for checking the meter, in her absence and consented that she would accept the result of ME Lab.  As per report of ME Lab, Goraya meter was found burnt.  OP No.4 issued a bill for Rs.11290/- for actual consumption (3007-1788=1219+ 237(238-1) = 1456) for two month period i.e. July to August 2015.  The demand of aforesaid amount of Rs.11290/-is legal and is as per actual consumption of the complainant.  Infact complainant made request to Xen that her case be put up before DSC (Dispute Settlement Committee).  Her request was accepted and the case was referred to DSC and she deposited a sum of Rs.2260/- i.e. 20% the actual bill amount as fee vide receipt dated 18.09.2015.  It is also stated that OP No.4 had given notice dated 23.09.2015 to complainant to be present before DSC on 29.09.2015 to put her version.  On 22.09.2015, the mother of complainant was present before DSC and case was decided in her presence.  As per order of DSC a sum of Rs.11290/- was chargeable from complainant. Rest of the allegations as leveled by complainant are denied and prayed that complaint be dismissed with costs.          

4.        In support of their version, the parties have tendered documentary evidence. Learned counsel for complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CW-1 alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. memo dated 19.12.2013 Ex.C-3, memo dated 23.09.2014 Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.   

5.        The learned counsel for OPs has also tendered affidavit of Sh.Harwinder Singh Bhatal Ex.OPA alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. memo dated 19.12.2013 Ex.OP-1, memo dated 23.09.2014 Ex.OP-2, letter No.11/2008 Ex.OP-3, ledger Ex.OP-4 and in remaining evidence photocopy of order dated 20.08.2014 of Dispute Settlement Committee Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.

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

7.       At the outset learned counsel for the OPs submitted that the complainant had already filed an application dated 07.09.2015 for redressal of her grievance before Disputes Settlement Committee and the matter was decided by the said Committee vide order dated 29.09.2015.  If the complainant was not satisfied with the order passed by the Said Committee then as per Regulation No.144 of the Sales Regulations of the PSPCL, she could have filed an appeal against the said order before the Higher Authority, but instead of doing so, she has filed the present complaint on 10.11.2015 before this Forum, which is not maintainable.  Therefore, same be dismissed with cost.

To this effect, the learned counsel for complainant submitted that complaint is maintainable before this Forum as she never appeared before the Dispute Settlement Committee, therefore, the order passed by said Committee is not binding upon her. 

In application dated 07.09.2015-Ex.OP-5, submitted by complainant with the OPs, she has stated that her mother alone lives in the said house and actual consumption of electricity was not as the same as depicted in the said bill dated 22.08.2015, for a sum of Rs.11290/-.   The old/previous meter in question was burnt in the month of June and the excessive bill pertain to the burnt meter only.  It is further stated that she was working at Kapurthala and unable to come again and again so her case be referred to Dispute Settlement Committee and decision given by the said Committee would be acceptable to her.  From the perusal of order dated 29.09.2015 Ex.OP-6, passed by Dispute Settlement Committee, it is evident that the mother of the complainant namely Rama, who as per version of the complainant alone was consuming the electricity, appeared before the said Committee and consented to pay due amount in two equal bimonthly installments and after considering her request, the said Committee ordered that due amount is to be recovered in two equal bimonthly installments from complainant.

8.       From the documents Ex.OP5 and Ex.OP-6 discussed above, it is apparent that complainant had already approached the DSC for redressal her grievance.  Now, the point for consideration before us is as to whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum, when the case of the complainant had already been considered and decided by Dispute Settlement Committee constituted by PSPCL? The legal position in respect is no longer res integra.  It is settled proposition of law that in case complainant – consumer chooses to avail the remedy provided by the PSPCL to get his/her grievance redressed, then complainant cannot approach the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.  It is also settled that in case the complainant is not satisfied with the decision of the DSC, he/she has a right to file an appeal against the said order under Regulation No.144 of the Sales Regulations of the PSPCL but cannot approach the District Forum by way of filing a fresh complaint. Since, the complainant had already availed the remedy provided by PSPCL to get her grievance redressed and if she was not satisfied with the decision of the DSC, then she had a right to file an appeal against the said order under Regulation No.144 of the Sales Regulation of the PSPCL, but cannot approach the District Forum by way of filing fresh complaint for redressal of her grievance.  Reliance in this connection is placed on the case titled as Punjab State Electricity Board & others vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others, 2005 (3) C.L.T. 491.  Wherein, The Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has held that once the complainant chooses to avail the remedy provided by the PSEB to get his grievance redressed, then he cannot approach the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act-having chosen one remedy, the consumer can not resort to the other remedy. In the case of Punjab State Electricity Board through Sr. Executive Engineer vs. Satish Kumar 2007 (1) C.L.T. 198, The Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has held that Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section-3, complainant has chosen to avail remedy available to him by approaching the Disputes Settlement Committee-after decision of the committee where she failed, he cannot come to the Fora under the act, once a remedy is chosen  that  must be taken to its logical end.

9.       In the light of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by Kusum Lata– complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs. 

10.     Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

 

Dated:  18.05.2016

                                                                                               

                                                                   (Neena Sandhu)

                                                                   President

 

                                                                                                                                                                              (Kanwaljeet Singh)

                                                                   Member