Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/20/2017

Kulwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

XEN PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Dharam Pal Bali

23 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   20 of 2017

Date of Institution                      :      09.05.2017 

Date of Decision              :     23.07.2018      

Kulwinder Kaur W/o Shri Nachhatar Singh Resident of Village Charan, PO Jadla, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. X.E.N. Punjab State Power Corporation, Nawanshahr, District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar.
2. S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation, Sub Division Jadla, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar.

Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

SH.A.P.S. RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant  :         Sh.D.P. Balli, Advocate

For OPs                :         Sh.Nipun Bhalla, Advocate

ORDER 

PER S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1. The present complaint has been filed by Kulwinder Kaur -complainant, wherein it is alleged that she is consumer of electric connection bearing No.N42RK581096F and same is installed in the house of complainant at Village Charan.  Complainant is regularly paying electricity consumption bill with the OPs and never disobeyed the payment of the bill.  The prior bill which was issued by OPs showing consumption of unit in the range between 300-400 units and amount of bill was between 1500-2000 only.  Complainant was surprised to see when OPs was issued bill dated 01-2016 for amounting to Rs.25670/- in which OPs were shown consumption of 3683 units. Complainant approached to OPs at Jadla to correct the said bill amount but they flatly refused her request so she challenged the meter and after she still paying her bill according to consumption, but now she has received a letter No.4115 dated 02.05.2017 regarding to pay the said amount of Rs.25670/- of wrong consumption.  Complainant again approached to OP-2 with folded hand and requested to correct the said bill amount but OP flatly refused the request of complainant.  Lastly, it is prayed that OPs be directed to withdraw demand of recovery of Rs.25670/-.     
2.  Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly OPs appeared through its counsel and filed written reply whereby they contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint.  Complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands.  Complainant is having no cause of action against OPs due to factual and legal proposition that complainant is consumer of OPs falling EWS category under which she is given some concessional units of electricity only upto some extent.  In the month of January, 2016 the complainant consumed 3683 units of electricity much beyond the concessional units allotted to her and thus she was issued Bill amounting to Rs.25670/-.  Complainant herself challenged the meter and said meter sent to ME Lab Goraya and said meter was tested & found to be working correctly and due intimation dated 02.05.2017 regarding this was also sent to the complainant.  It is also submitted that during the time from when the said meter was challenged till the time of report of ME Lab was obtained, the demand of Rs.25670/- was kept pending keeping in view the principles of natural justice and when the meter was found to be working correctly the demand of Rs.25670/- was again raised.  Complaint is legally & factually not maintainable and moreso it is against the provisions of the Electricity Act & Electricity Manuals & code. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has been guilty of not paying the bill amounting to Rs.25670/- which is for the electricity units consumed by her.  It is admitted that bill of Rs.25670/- for 3683 units for the month of January 2016 was issued by OPs. Rest of the averments made in the complaint are emphatically denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of complaint. 
3. In order to prove the complaint, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.  Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Parminder AE Ex.OP1/A, alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard counsel for the complainant with their valuable assistance and also gone through complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
5. Learned counsel for both the parties argued similar to their respective pleadings. So no need to reproduce for want of repetition.  In nutshell, the complainant is consumer of the OPs and having electric meter in her house is not denied by the OPs.  Rather, the OPs have also admitted that the bill of disputed amount of Rs.25670/- in the memo dated 19.04.2017 issued to the complainant.  Now question remains whether the memo whereby OPs demanded Rs.25670/- is legal, valid and according to electricity rules or not.  For that purpose, we have considered the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file by the both the parties and from the scrutiny of the memo it has become clear that the said amount of Rs.25670/- has been imposed to the complainant by OPs due to the fact that the meter of the complainant was got checked in ME Lab Gorayan but not in the presence of the complainant.  Rather, the alleged disputed amount has been imposed upon the complainant simply asking that the same has been imposed as per ME Lab report which is checked without presence of complainant. Moreover, as per consumption data Ex.C-3 = OP-1 shows that there is difference of previous reading as well as future consumption reading there is too much differences in the same.  So it is not believable that she consumed too much electric units.  As such with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs have not followed the proper procedure enumerated in the electricity rules.  Accordingly, the memo 19.04.2017 for recovery of Rs.25670/- is hereby set aside and the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted.  Further, OPs are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-.  The above said entire compliance be made by the OPs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 23.07.2018

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (A.P.S. Rajput)

                          Member                                    President