The complainant Sanjeev Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Chairman-Cum-Managing Director and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is 'consumer' of PSPCL for the last several years. His connection number is 3001704359.
It is alleged that PSPCL has given the connection by installing the meter outside the home of the complainant on pole. The installation is very faulty. There is no protection. The box in which the meter has been fitted is broken and it has been fastened on the pole very precariously with a very thin aluminum string. The rain water keep on seeping into the box. The moisture is also getting inside the meter box and wires keep on sparking. Despite several complaints, opposite parties are not replacing the block and meter box. They demanded the money from the complainant.
It is further alleged that the complainant also complained on the publicly circulated No.1912 on 15.9.2017 and and then on 2.12.2017 vide complaint Nos.8863493 and 929313 respectively. He several times visited the office of opposite parties, but to no response.
It is also alleged that the complainant got signed an application from opposite party No.3 directing J.E to inspect the condition of the meter/box and do the needful, but Bajinder Sandhu, J.E did not do anything. The complainant also approached Suvidha Center to submit another application, but they refused to accept it.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of 50,000/- for agony and trouble. He has also prayed for directions to opposite parties to fix the faulty meter and box. Hence, this complaint.
In view of statement suffered by learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No.1 was deleted from the array of opposite parties.
Upon notice, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written version. In the written version, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file the complaint. He has not come with clean hands and concealed the true and material facts.
As per OP's the true facts are that the meter status as per bill dated 24.11.2017 is '0', which means 'O.K'. Opposite party No.2 received the written complaint from the complainant regarding fitting of meter in broken condition and seeping of rain water in the meter. On receiving the complaint, the matter was immediately forwarded/marked to concerned J.E.Baljinder Singh on 1.12.2017 for inspection and report. The letter of complaint was handed over to the complainant on his request for J.E report as he wanted to approach the concerned J.E personally and get the J.E inspection report early by hand, but the complainant never approached the concerned J.E. The same complaint has also been forwarded to opposite party No.3 by opposite party No.2 vide endorsement No.14084 dated 6.12.2017. Opposite party No.3 again immediately forwarded/marked the matter to concerned J.E for inspection and report. Baljinder Singh, J.E immediately visited at site and found that two meters were installed on the pole into two different MCB and meter of the complainant was installed at upper side. Some mischievous persons have damaged MCB by hitting something. Baljinder Singh, J.E also reported that the raining water has not seem to be gone into the meter box and action should be taken as per PSPCL rules. On the report of concerned J.E, concerned division immediately ordered for change of meter vide MCO No.100005083105. The meter of the complainant was changed on 15.12.2017 free of cost. The intimation was sent to opposite party No.2 vide memo No.2347 dated 11.12.2017 and further vide memo dated 2364 on 18.12.2017. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have resolved the complaint without any delay.
It is also pleaded that the meter of the complainant was installed by opposite party Nos.2 and 3 with very due care and after following the proper procedure. There is no error done by the employees of PSPCL. There is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with special cost to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
On merits, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have controverted all the material averments of the complainant and reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, they have prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Parties were asked to produce the evidence.
In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of bill, (Ex.C1); photocopies of photographs of meter, (Ex.C2, Ex.C3 and Ex.C6); photocopy of letter, (Ex.C4); his affidavit dated 28.2.2018, (Ex.C5) and closed the evidence.
To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Mansimerpreet Kaur dated 17.4.2018, (Ex.OP2/1); affidavit of Baljinder Singh dated 17.4.2018, (Ex.OP2/2); photocopy of data, (Ex.OP2/3); photocopies of job order, (Ex.OP2/4 and Ex.OP2/9); photocopy of list of complaints, (Ex.OP2/5); photocopy of complaint register, (Ex.OP2/6); photocopy of memo, (Ex.OP2/7); photocopy of e-mail, (Ex.OP2/8); photocopy of application, (Ex.OP2/10) and closed the evidence.
We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and gone through the file carefully.
The complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by the complainant that although, needful has been done, but opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have unnecessary delayed the matter for long time, which resulted in unnecessary botheration and harassment to the complainant. Therefore, he is also entitled to compensation as prayed for.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 has reiterated his stand as taken in the written version and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 that there is no unnecessary delay on the part of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The complaint register, (Ex.OP2/6) proves that the complaint made by the complainant was attended properly and without any delay. Application, (Ex.OP2/10) was moved by the complainant. It was immediately marked to concerned J.E. This fact was also admitted by the complainant. The report of J.E was received and forwarded to opposite party No.2 by opposite party No.1 vide letter, (Ex.OP1/7). This report was received on 11.12.2017 and this letter also proves that the meter was replaced on 15.12.2017. There is no unnecessary delay on the part of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The matter has already been resolved. The grievance of the complainant has already been redressed. There is nothing to show any loss to him. There is no justification for any compensation without proving any loss. The complaint has already become infructuous and it is liable to be dismissed.
We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.
From the perusal of complaint, it is apparent that the grievance of the complainant was only for replacement of box wherein the meter was installed. The complainant has produced on record copy of letter, (Ex.C4). It is dated 1.12.2017 and it was marked to Baljinder Singh, J.E. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have also placed on record copy of letter, (Ex.OP2/7) received from Assistant Executive Engineer to opposite party No.2. Vide this letter, it was intimated to opposite party No.2 that somebody has damaged MCB and change of meter was proposed. The endorsement dated 18.12.2017 also proves that the meter has already been changed. Therefore, grievance of the complainant was resolved without any unreasonable delay.
Now, main grouse of the complainant is regarding compensation. The complainant has not proved any loss entitling him for compensation. Legal position regarding compensation has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, National Commission and State Commissions in number of authorities.
In latest judgment titled as Chief Administrative Huda Vs. Shakuntla Devi, I 2017 (CPJ) SC in Paragraph No.12 of this judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under:-
“12) The sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof of loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of opposite party. Once the said conditions are satisfied, the Consumer Forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled. There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury. There is a duty cast on the Consumer Forum to take into account all relevant factors for arriving at the compensation to be paid.”
Therefore keeping in view the aforesaid observation and fact that the complainant has failed to prove any loss or injury, the conclusion is that his prayer for compensation is not acceptable as no loss is proved.
In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint stands dismissed being infructuous without any order as to cost.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced:-
05-06-2018
(M.P Singh Pahwa)
President
(Jarnail Singh)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
